Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLoll, Frank
dc.contributor.authorPinkwart, Niels
dc.identifier.citationLoll, F. & Pinkwart, N. (2011). Guiding the Process of Argumentation: The Effects of Ontology and Collaboration. In Spada, H., Stahl, G., Miyake, N., & Law, N. (Eds.), Connecting Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning to Policy and Practice: CSCL2011 Conference Proceedings. Volume I — Long Papers (pp. 296-303). Hong Kong, China: International Society of the Learning Sciences.en_US
dc.description.abstractTeaching argumentation is challenging, and the factors of how to effectively support the acquisition of argumentation skills through technology are not fully known yet. In this paper, we evaluate the impact of using an argumentation system with different argument ontologies and with collaborative vs. individual use on the outcomes of scientific argu- mentation. The results of a controlled lab study with 36 participants indicate that simple ontologies may be more appropriate than highly structured ones. In addition, collaborative argumentation lead to more cluttered argumentation maps, including a higher amount of erroneously used and duplicate elements, which indicates that an expected peer-reviewing between group members did not occur. Yet, groups also tended to include more points-of- view in their arguments, leading to more elaborated argument maps.en_US
dc.publisherInternational Society of the Learning Sciencesen_US
dc.titleGuiding the Process of Argumentation: The Effects of Ontology and Collaborationen_US
dc.typeLong Papersen_US
Appears in Collections:CSCL 2011

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
296-303.pdf295.88 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.