Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Software Tools for Scaffolding Argumentation Competence Development

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Competence-based Vocational and Professional Education

Abstract

Argumentation is significant to vocational, professional and higher education due to the importance of discourse in the acquisition of scientific knowledge and its application in handling complex and societal issues in the third millennium. In real-world settings, building arguments, constructing counter-arguments and exploring the dialogical space of solutions are shaped in the daily social conversation and also in various social networking sites. However, the ill-defined nature of argumentation makes it difficult for learners to follow a set of strict rules and unbending laws on constructing arguments and responding to counter-arguments in order to gain and construct knowledge, reject false viewpoints, refine and modify claims and eliminate misunderstandings and misconceptions about the issue at stake. To cope with this, various software tools have been introduced and developed to help students practise and learn real-world competence of argumentation. The most recent approach is the use of computer-supported tools, such as representational guidance tools, digital dialogue games and micro- and macro-scripting approaches to scaffold argumentation and support the building, representing and sharing of arguments with the aim of learning. This chapter illustrates these software tools and explains how and when each of them could be used, and under which conditions, to optimally scaffold argumentation in vocational, professional and higher education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aleixandre-Jimenez, M. (2007). Designing argumentation learning environments. In S. Erduran & M. Aleixandre-Jimenez (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 91–115). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V, & Ashley, K. D. (1997). Teaching case-based argumentation through a model and examples empirical evaluation of an intelligent learning environment. In B. du Boulay & R. Mizoguchi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th world conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED-97) (pp. 87–94). Amsterdam: IOS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrew, G., & McMullen, L. M. (2000). Interpersonal scripts in the anger narratives told by clients in psychotherapy. Motivation and Emotion, 24(4), 271–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriessen, J. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–460). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In P. Coirier., & J. Andriessen (Eds.). Studies in writing. Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179–202). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M., & Lund, K. (1997). Promoting reflective interactions in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 13(3), 175–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumeister, R. F., & Scher, S. J. (1988). Self-defeating behavior patterns among normal individuals: Review and analysis of common self-destructive tendencies. Psychological Bulletin, 104(1), 3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2005). Computer support for knowledge construction in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behaviour, 21(4), 623–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beers, P. J., Kirschner, P. A., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2007). ICT-support for grounding in the classroom. Instructional Science, 35(6), 535–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL-97) (pp. 10–19). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertelsen, D. A., & Goodboy, A. K. (2009). Curriculum planning: Trends in communication studies, workplace competencies, and current programs at 4-year colleges and universities. Communication Education, 58(2), 262–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2007). Personally-seeded discussions to scaffold online argumentation. International Journal of Science Education, 29(3), 253–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., & Sampson, V. (2008). Assessing dialogic argumentation in online environments to relate structure, grounds, and conceptual quality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 293–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. B., D’Angelo, C. M., & Menekse, M. (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(4), 321–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coffin, C., & O’Halloran, K. (2008). Researching argumentation in educational contexts: New directions, new methods. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (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(4), 436–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P., & Jermann, P. (2006). Designing integrative scripts. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, & J. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 275–301). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erkens, G., Jaspers, J., Prangsma, M., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Coordination processes in computer supported collaborative writing. Computers in Human Behaviour, 21(3), 463–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertl, B., Kopp, B., & Mandl, H. (2008). Supporting learning using external representations. Computers and Education, 51(4), 1599–1608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, M. A. (2004). Emotion, argumentation and informal logic. Informal Logic, 24(3), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, T. F., Prakken, H., & Walton, D. (2007). The Carneades model of argument and burden of proof. Artificial Intelligence, 171(10–15), 875–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2010). Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 38(1), 59–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, A. C. (2006). The effects of conversational language on group interaction and group performance in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Instructional Science, 34(5), 367–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(4), 439–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Buckingham-Shum, S. J., & Carr, C. S. (Eds.). (2003). Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Beers, P. J., Boshuizen, H. P. A., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2008). Coercing shared knowledge in collaborative learning environments. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24(2), 403–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobbe, L., Weinberger, A., Dillenbourg, P., Harrer, A., Hämäläinen, R., Häkkinen, P., & Fischer, F. (2007). Specifying computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2–3), 211–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., & Hesse, F. W. (2006). Collaboration scripts-a conceptual analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 18(2), 159–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2009). Do students need to be taught how to reason? Educational Research Review, 4(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazonder, A. W., Wilhelm, P., & Ootes, S. A. W. (2003). Using sentence openers to foster student interaction in computer-mediated learning environments. Computers and Education, 41(3), 291–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leitão, S. (2003). Evaluating and selecting counter-arguments. Written Communication, 20(3), 269–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leith, K. P., & Baumeister, R. F. (1996). Why do bad moods increase self-defeating behavior? Emotion, risk taking, and self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1250–1267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loll, F., & Pinkwart, N. (2013). LASAD: Flexible representations for computer-based collaborative argumentation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 71(1), 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., Scheuer, O., & McLaren, B. M. (2012). How tough should it be? Simplifying the development of argumentation systems using a configurable platform. To appear in: N. Pinkwart, & B. M. McLaren (Eds.), Educational Technologies for Teaching Argumentation Skills. Bentham Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund, K., Molinari, J., Sejourne, A., & Baker, M. (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(2-3), 273–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2007). Collaborative learning through chat discussions and argument diagrams in secondary school. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(1), 109–126.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulder, M. (2014). Conceptions of professional competence. In: S. Billett, C. Harteis, & H. Gruber (Eds.), International handbook on research into professional and practice-based learning. Dordrecht: Springer (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Munneke, L., Andriessen, J., Kanselaar, G., & Kirschner, P. (2007). Supporting interactive argumentation: Influence of representational tools on discussing a wicked problem. Computers in Human Behaviour, 23(3), 1072–1088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O. (2013). Fostering argumentation-based computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education. PhD thesis, The Netherlands: Wageningen University.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Behaviour, 27(1), 309–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., Busstra, M. C., Mulder, M., Popov, V., & Chizari, M. (2012a). 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. 276–289). IGI Global.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., Busstra, M. C., Mulder, M., Biemans, H. J. A., Tobi, H., Geelen, M. M. E. E., van’t Veer, P., & Chizari, M. (2012a). Online discussion compensates for suboptimal timing of supportive information presentation in a digitally supported learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(2), 193–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2012b). Argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL). A systematic review and synthesis of fifteen years of research. Educational Research Review, 7(2), 79–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., Weinberger, A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013a). Scripting for construction of a transactive memory system in a multidisciplinary CSCL environment. Learning and Instruction, 25(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., Teasley, S. D., Biemans, H. J. A., Weinberger, A., & Mulder, M. (2013b). Facilitating learning in multidisciplinary groups with transactive CSCL scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(2), 189–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., Weinberger, A., Biemans, H. J. A., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2013c). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction through a transactive discussion script in CSCL. Computers and Education, 61(2), 59–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O. (2016). Considering students’ epistemic beliefs to facilitate their argumentative discourse and attitudinal change with a digital dialogue game. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1208112

  • Noroozi, O., & Mulder, M. (2016). Design and evaluation of a digital module with guided peer feedback for student learning biotechnology and molecular life sciences, attitudinal change, and satisfaction. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20981

  • Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2016a). Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay. Internet and Higher Education, 31(1), 20–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., McAlister, S., & Mulder, M. (2016b). Impacts of a digital dialogue game and epistemic beliefs on argumentative discourse and willingness to argue. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S., Phillips, L., & Osborne, J. F. (2008). Scientific inquiry: The place of interpretation and argumentation. In J. Luft, R. L. Bell, & J. Gess (Eds.), Science as inquiry in the secondary setting (pp. 87–98). National Science Teachers Association. Washington DC: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counter-arguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 157–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, E. M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G. M., Reynolds, R. E., & Bendixen, L. D. (2004). Personality interactions and scaffolding in on-line discussions. Educational Computing Research, 30(1-2), 113–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2007). Science education for the twenty first century. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 3(3), 173–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, D., & Mukherjee, A. (2007). Promoting critical-thinking skills by using negotiation exercises. Journal of Education for Business, 82(5), 251–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinkwart, N., Aleven, V., Ashley, K., & Lynch, C. (2006). Toward legal argument instruction with graph grammars and collaborative filtering techniques. In M. Ikeda, K. Ashley, & T. W. Chan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS 2006) (pp. 227–236). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinkwart, N., Ashley, K. D., Lynch, C., & Aleven, V. (2009). Evaluating an intelligent tutoring system for making legal arguments with hypotheticals. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(4), 401–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranney, M., & Schank, P. (1998). Toward an integration of the social and the scientific: Observing, modeling, and promoting the explanatory coherence of reasoning. In S. Read & L. Miller (Eds.), Connectionist models of social reasoning and social behavior (pp. 245–274). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 483–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscroft, A. (2007). Promoting thinking and conceptual change with digital dialogue games. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(6), 453–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscroft, A. (2011). Dialogue and connectivism: A new approach to understanding and promoting dialogue-rich networked learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 139–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscroft, A., & Pilkington, R. M. (2000). Investigation by design: Developing dialogue models to support reasoning and conceptual change. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11(1), 273–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscroft, A., & McAlister, S. (2006). Digital games and learning in cyberspace: A dialogical approach. E-Learning and Digital Media, 3(1), 37–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravenscroft, A., & McAlister, S. (2008). Investigating and promoting educational argumentation: Towards new digital practices. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 31(3), 317–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., & Kanuka, H. (2007). Barriers to online critical discourse. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(1), 105–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge Construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 225–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., & McLaren, B. M. (2010). Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 43–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., Loll, F., & Pinkwart, N. (2012). Automated analysis and feedback techniques to support and teach argumentation: A survey. In N. Pinkwart & B. M. McLaren (Eds.), Educational technologies for teaching argumentation skills (pp. 71–124). Sharjah: Bentham Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheuer, O., McLaren, B. M., Weinberger, A., & Niebuhr, S. (2013). Promoting critical, elaborative discussions through a collaboration script and argument diagrams. Instructional Science, 42(4), 127–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & De Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2(2-3), 297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soller, A. (2001). Supporting social interaction in an intelligent collaborative learning system. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 40–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive processing in computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, N. L., & Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In J. Andriessen & P. Corrier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 97–116). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, 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. (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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D., Connelly, J., Lesgold, A., Paolucci, M., Toth, E., Toth, J., & Weiner, A. (2001). Representational and Advisory Guidance for Students Learning Scientific Inquiry. In K. D. Forbus & P. J. Feltovich (Eds.), Smart machines in education: The coming revolution in educational technology (pp. 7–35). Menlo Park: AAAI/MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 485–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Amelsvoort, M., Andriessen, J., & Kanselaar, G. (2008). How students structure and relate argumentative knowledge when learning together with diagrams. Computers in Human Behaviour, 24(3), 1293–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Bruggen, J. M. (2003). Explorations in graphical argumentation: The use of external representations in collaborative problem solving. PhD dissertation, The Netherlands: Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Bruggen, J., Kirschner, P., & Jochems, W. (2002). External representation of argumentation in CSCL and the management of cognitive load. Learning and Instruction, 12(1), 121–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Drie, J., Van Boxtel, C., Erkens, G., & Kanselaar, G. (2005). Using representational tools to support historical reasoning in computer-supported collaborative learning. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 14(1), 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: a pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1999). Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies, 1(4), 479–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook of argumentation theory: A critical survey of classical backgrounds and modern studies. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Henkemans, F. S. (2008). Dialectical profiles and indicators of argumentative moves. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 475–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gelder, T. (2002). Argument mapping with Reason!Able. The American Philosophical Association Newsletter on Philosophy and Computers, 2(1), 85–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K. (2006). The behavior of tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 16(3), 227–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (2002). Collaborative argumentation in academic education. Instructional Science, 30(3), 155–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (2000). The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Synthese, 123(3), 327–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collaborative learning. Computers and Education, 46(1), 71–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolf, B., Murray, T., Marshall, D., Dragon, T., Kohler, K., Mattingly, M., Bruno, M., Murray, D., & Sammons, J. (2005). Critical thinking environments for science education. In C. K. Looi, G. McCalla, B. Bredeweg, & J. Breuker (Eds.), Proceedings of the 12th international conference on AI and Education (pp. 702–709). Amsterdam: IOS.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Education and Competence Studies, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Omid Noroozi

  2. Cass School of Education & Communities, University of East London, London, UK

    Simon McAlister

Authors
  1. Omid Noroozi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Simon McAlister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Omid Noroozi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Education and Competence Studies Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    Martin Mulder

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Noroozi, O., McAlister, S. (2017). Software Tools for Scaffolding Argumentation Competence Development. In: Mulder, M. (eds) Competence-based Vocational and Professional Education. Technical and Vocational Education and Training: Issues, Concerns and Prospects, vol 23. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_38

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_38

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-41711-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-41713-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation