Omid Noroozi


This paper investigates the role of instructional supports for argumentation-based computer supported collaborative learning (ABCSCL), a teaching approach that improves the quality of learning processes and outcomes. Relevant literature has been reviewed to identify the instructional supports in ABCSCL environments. A range of instructional supports in ABCSCL is proposed including scaffolding, scripting, and representational tools. Each of these instructional supports are discussed in detail. Furthermore, the extent to which and the way in which such instructional supports can be applied in ABCSCL environments are discussed. Finally, suggestions for future work and implications for the design of ABCSCL environments are provided.


Article visualizations:

Hit counter


argumentation, argumentation-based learning, learning, instructional support

Full Text:



Aviv, R. (2000). Educational performance of ALN via content analysis. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 4, 53-72.

Azevedo, R., & Hadwin, A.F. (2005). Scaffolding self-regulated learning and metacognition- implications for the design of computer-based scaffolds. Instructional Science, 33, 367-379.

Baker, M. (1999). Argumentation and constructive interaction. In G. Rijlaarsdam., & E. Esperet (series Eds.) & J. Andriessen., & P. Coirier (Eds.). Studies in Writing: Vol 5. Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 179-202) Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Baker, M., Andriessen, J., Lund, K., Van Amelsvoort, M., & Quignard, M. (2007). Rainbow: A framework for analysing computer-mediated pedagogical debates. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 315-357.

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

Bell, P. (2004). Promoting students' argument construction and collaborative debate in the Science classroom. In M.C. Linn., E.A. Davis., & P. Bell (Eds.), Internet Environments for Science Education (pp. 341-353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Carmien, S., Kollar, I., Fischer, G., & Fischer, F. (2007). The interplay of internal and external scripts- a distributed cognition perspective. In F. Fischer, H. Mandl, J. Haake & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning: Cognitive, computational, and educational perspectives (pp. 303–326). New York: Springer.

Claudia, M., Steil, A., & Todesco, J. (2004). Factors influencing the adoption of the Internet as a teaching tool at foreign language schools. Computers and Education, 42(4), 353-374.

Cohen, E.G. (1994) Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64 (1), 1-35.

Coirier, P., & Golder, C. (1993). Writing argumentative text: A developmental study of the acquisition of supporting structures. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 8(2),169-181.

Conklin, J., & Begeman, M.L. (1988). gIBIS: A Hypertext Tool for Exploratory Policy Discussion. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4(6), 303-331.

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, 436-447.

Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P.A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61-91). Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland.

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.

Ellis, R.A., & Calvo, R.A. (2004). Learning through discussions in blended environments. Educational Media International, 41(3), 263-274.

Farrokhnia, M., Pijeira-Díaz, H. J., Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J. (2019). Computer-supported collaborative concept mapping: The effects of different instructional designs on conceptual understanding and knowledge co-construction. Computers and Education, 142, 103640.

Ge, Xun., & Land, S.M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. ETR&D, 52(2), 5-22.

Giroud, A. (1999). Studying argumentative text processing through collaborative writing. In J.E.B. Andriessen., & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 149-179). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Hung, D., Tan, S.C., & Chen, D.T. (2005). How the internet facilitates learning as dialog: design considerations for online discussions. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(1), 37-46.

Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2003). Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Learning to argue (Vol. 1, pp. 205–226). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

Kim, W., Suh, Y., & Whinston, A.B. (1993). An IBIS and object-oriented approach to scientific research data management. Journal of System Software, 23, 183-197.

Klein, P.D. (1999). Reopening inquiry into cognitive processes in writing-to-learn. Educational Psychology Review, 11(3), 203-270.

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.

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

Kollar, I., Fischer, F., Slotta, D.J. (2007). Internal and external scripts in computer-supported collaborative inquiry learning. Learning and Instruction 17, 708-721.

Kolodner, J.L., & Guzdial, M. (1996). Effects with and of CSCL: Tracking learning in a new paradigm. In T. Koschmann (Ed.) CSCL: Theory and Practice of an emerging paradigm (pp. 307-320). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Koschmann, T. (2003) CSCL, Argumentation, and Deweyan Inquiry: argumentation is learning, in J. Andriessen, M. Baker., & D. Suthers (Eds), Arguing to Learn. Confronting Cognitions in Computer-supported Collaborative Learning Environments. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., & Biemans, H.J.A. (2019). How does online peer feedback improve argumentative essay writing and learning?. Innovations in Education and Teaching International.

Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E. (2020). Worked example or scripting? Fostering students’ online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing and learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-15.

Leitao, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332-360.

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.

McLoughlin, C., & Marshall, L. (2000). Scaffolding: A model for learner support in an online teaching environment. In A. Herrmann., & M.M. Kulski (Eds.), Flexible futures in tertiary teaching. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Teaching Learning, Forum, 2-4 February 2000. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.

Morris, R., Hadwin, A.F., Gress C.L.Z., Miller, M., Fior, M., Church, H., & Winne, PH. (2009). Designing roles, scripts, and prompts to support CSCL in gStudy. Computers in Human Behavior, xxx (2009) xxx-xxx.

Munneke, L. (2007). Arguing to learn. Supporting interactive argumentation through Computer- Supported Collaborative Learning. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.

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

Newman, D.R., Johnson, C., Webb, B. & Cochrane, C. (1999) Evaluating the Quality of Learning in Computer Supported Co-operative Learning. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 48, 484-495.

Noroozi, O. (2017). Considering students’ epistemic beliefs to facilitate their argumentative discourse and attitudinal change with a digital dialogue game. Innovations in Education and Teaching International.

Noroozi, O., Alikhani, I., Jarvela, S., Kirschner, P.A., Juuso, I., & Seppänen, T. (2019a). Multimodal data to design visual learning analytics for understanding regulation of learning. Computers in Human Behavior.

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

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.

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.

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

Noroozi, O., Busstra, M.C., Mulder, M., Biemans, H.J.A., Tobi, H., Geelen, M.M.E.E., van’t Veer, P., & Chizari, M. (2012). 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.

Noroozi, O., Dehghanzadeh, H., & Talaee, E. (2020). A systematic review on the impacts of game-based learning on argumentation skills. Entertainment Computing, 100369.

Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J. (2019). The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(5), 548-557.

Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., Biemans, H.J.A., van Ginkel, S., & Bayat, A. (2019b). Students’ online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing, and content learning: Does gender matter?. Interactive Learning Environments.

Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P., Biemans, H.J.A., & Mulder, M. (2018). Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first- to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 153-176.

Noroozi, O., & McAlister, S. (2017). Software tools for scaffolding argumentation competence development. In M. Mulder, (Ed.), Competence-based vocational and professional education. Bridging the worlds of work and education (pp.819-839). Cham: Springer International Publishing Switzerland.

Noroozi, O., & Mulder, M. (2017). 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, 45(1), 31-39.

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, 79-106.

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.

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, 59-76.

Nussbaum, E.M., Hartley, K., Sinatra, G.M., Reynolds, R.E., & Bendixen, L.D. (2002). Enhancing the quality of online discussions. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans: LA.

Pea, R.D (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423-451.

Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14, 201-241.

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

Schwarz, B.B., & Glassner, A. (2007). The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 449-478.

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.

Suthers, D. (1999). Representational support for collaborative inquiry. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawai’i International Conference on the System Sciences (HICSS-32, CD-ROM). Maui, Hawai’i: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE).

Suthers, D. (2001). Towards a systematic study of representational guidance for collaborative learning discourse. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 7, 254-277.

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, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

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

Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Valero Haro, A., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H.J.A., & Mulder, M. (2019). First-and second-order scaffolding of argumentation competence and domain-specific knowledge acquisition: a systematic review. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28(3), 329-345.

Valero Haro, A, Noroozi, O., Biemans, H.J.A., & Mulder, M. (2020). Students’ argumentation knowledge, behavior and attitude and their relationships with domain-specific knowledge acquisition. Journal of Constructivist Psychology. 10.1080/10720537.2020.1734995.

Van Amelsvoort, M. (2006). A Space for Debate. How diagrams support collaborative argumentation-based learning. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.

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. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(4), 485-521.

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

Van Bruggen, J.M., & Kirschner, P.A. (2003). Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 177-204). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Veerman, A.L. (2000). Computer supported collaborative learning through argumentation. PhD dissertation, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.

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

Wang, Q.Y., & Woo, H.L. (2007). Comparing asynchronous online discussions and face-to-face discussions in a classroom setting. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 272-286.

Weinberger, A. (2003). Scripts for Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction. PhD dissertation, Munchen University, Germany.

Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33(1), 1-30.

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

Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge construction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer., H. Mandl., J. Haake., & I. Kollar (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported communication of knowledge - cognitive, computational and educational perspectives (pp. 191-211). New York: Springer.

Zhu, E. (1996). Meaning negotiation, knowledge construction, and mentoring in a distance learning course. In Proceedings of selected research and development presentations at the 1996 National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 821-844).

Zigurs, I., & Kozar, K.A. (1994). An exploratory study of roles in computer-supported groups. MIS Quarterly, 18, 277-297.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright © 2016-2023. European Journal of Open Education and E-learning Studies (ISSN 2501-9120) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing GroupAll rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number (ISSN) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library (Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms.

All the research works published on this journal are meeting the Open Access Publishing requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).