ABSTRACT
Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) systems are assumed to have the potential to enhance the effectiveness of peer learning interactions (Andriessen et al., 1996; Dillenbourg, 1999). Groupware programmes are used for CSCL as they generally support and integrate three functions: task support, communicative support, and group support. Computer tools in groupware programmes are either task-oriented (information sharing, cooperation and coordination), communication-oriented (interpersonal exchange) or group-oriented (Andriessen, 2003). They are meant to support collaborative group work by sharing tools and resources between group members, by supporting group dynamics, and by giving communication opportunities within the group and to the external world. Shared argumentation maps are task-related tools that are often used in
CSCL. They are constructed by the collaborating students and are designed to be helpful in completing the inquiry task at hand (e.g., CSILE: Scardamalia, Bereiter & Lamon, 1994; Belvédère: Suthers et al., 1995). The maps visually represent the argumentative structures the students agree upon. The aim of this chapter is to investigate the effects of argumentative maps or diagrams on students working on collaborative writing tasks. Often, inconsistent or disappointing results are found in the way argumentative diagrams support reasoning and discussion in CSCL (Van Drie et al., 2005). We will present two research projects that investigated the effects of two types of argumentative diagrams for supporting collaborative writing and inquiry. In both the COSAR (Computer Support for Collaborative and Argumentative Writing) and the CRoCiCL (Computerized Representation of Coordination in Collaborative Learning) projects, argumentative diagrams were used to support collaboration and argumentation on inquiry tasks. In the COSAR project the effectiveness of the argumentative diagram for the quality of the students’ group products was disappointing. For the CRoCiCL project we redesigned the representational features of the argumentative diagram. Although the purpose of the two tools was similar, the effectiveness of the diagram for stimulating the quality
of the students’ group products improved. For the explanation of these differences in effectiveness, we offer some ideas but no definitive answers, as the two projects differed in more aspects and the two tools were not compared directly. However, we hypothesise that the representational guidance (Suthers, 2003; Suthers & Hundhausen, 2003) the two tools offer to collaborating students differs substantially. The differences in guidance may have resulted in differences in the effectiveness of the argumentative tools on the quality of students’ group products.
