Guiding the Process of Argumentation: The Effects of Ontology and Collaboration

Abstract

Teaching 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.