The use of online scaffolding to develop argumentation skills: a scoping review

References

• Andriessen, J. E. B. (2006). Arguing to learn. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 443–459). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2007). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
   Google Scholar
• Belland, B. R. (2014). Scaffolding: Definition, current debates, and future directions. In Handbook of research on educational communications and technology: Fourth edition (pp. 505–518). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_39
   Google Scholar
• Belland, B. R. (2016). Instructional scaffolding in STEM education: Strategies and efficacy evidence. Springer Open. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02565-0_5
   Google Scholar
• Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., & Richardson, J. C. (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation: Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based arguments. Instructional Science, 39, 667–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9148-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belland, B. R., Gu, J., Armbrust, S., & Cook, B. (2015). Scaffolding argumentation about water quality: A mixed-method study in a rural middle school. Educational Technology Research & Development, 63(3), 325–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9373-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belland, B. R., Kim, C. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013). A framework for designing scaffolds that improve motivation and cognition. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 243–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.838920
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billing, D. (2007). Teaching for transfer of core/key skills in higher education: Cognitive skills. Higher Education, 53(4), 483–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-5628-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouyias, Y., & Demetriadis, S. (2012). Peer-monitoring vs. micro-script fading for enhancing knowledge acquisition when learning in computer-supported argumentation environments. Computers & Education, 59(2), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706QP063OA
   Google Scholar
• Cagiltay, K. (2006). Scaffolding strategies in electronic performance support systems: Types and challenges. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290500467673
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, C. H., & She, H. C. (2012). The impact of recurrent on-line synchronous scientific argumentation on students’ argumentation and conceptual change. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15(1), 197–210. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.15.1.197.pdf
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, K. L., & Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(3), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davies, M.(2011). Concept mapping, mind mapping and argument mapping: What are the differences and do they matter. Higher Education, 62, 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9387-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doo, M. Y., Bonk, C., & Heo, H. (2020). A meta-analysis of scaffolding effects in online learning in higher education. International Review of Research in Open & Distributed Learning, 21(3), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v21i3.4638
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2021). A scaffolding tool to assist learners in argumentative writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(1–2), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1660685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan, Y. C., Wang, T. H., & Wang, K. H. (2020). Studying the effectiveness of an online argumentation model for improving undergraduate students’ argumentation ability. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 36(4), 526–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12420
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felton, M. K., & Kuhn, D. (2007). “How do I know?” The epistemological roots of critical thinking. Journal of Museum Education, 32(2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2007.11510562
   Google Scholar
• Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2009). Distance education in the digital age: Common misconceptions and challenging tasks. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education, 23(2), 105–122. https://www.ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/627
   Google Scholar
• Hannafin, M., Kathleen, A. E., Ae, H., Gabbitas, B., Hannafin, K., & Gabbitas, B. (2009). Re-examining cognition during student-centered, Web-based learning. Education Technology Research Devevelopment, 57(6), 767–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9117-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (2013). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (pp. 115–140). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Harrell, M.(2011). Argument diagramming and critical thinking in introductory philosophy. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(3), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.502559
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hefter, M. H., Berthold, K., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S., & Fries, S. (2014). Effects of a training intervention to foster argumentation skills while processing conflicting scientific positions. Instructional Science, 42(6), 929–947. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-014-9320-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hefter, M. H., Renkl, A., Riess, W., Schmid, S., Fries, S., & Berthold, K. (2018). Training interventions to foster skill and will of argumentative thinking. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(3), 325–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1363689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, C. C., Chiu, C. H., Lin, C. H., & Wang, T. I. (2015). Enhancing skill in constructing scientific explanations using a structured argumentation scaffold in scientific inquiry. Computers and Education, 91, 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.09.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, P. S., Van Dyke, M., Chen, Y., & Smith, T. J. (2014). The effect of a graph‐oriented computer‐assisted project‐based learning environment on argumentation skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(1), 32–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12080
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeong, A., & Joung, S. (2007). Scaffolding collaborative argumentation in asynchronous discussions with message constraints and message labels. Computers and Education, 48(3), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonassen, D. H., & Kim, B. (2010). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: Design justifications and guidelines. Educational Technology Research & Development, 58(4), 439–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-009-9143-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, N. J., Belland, B. R., & Walker, A. E. (2018). Effectiveness of computer-based scaffolding in the context of problem-based learning for stem education: Bayesian meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(2), 397–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9419-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, S. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). Synergies: Effects of source representation and goal instructions on evidence quality, reasoning, and conceptual integration during argumentation-driven inquiry. Instructional Science, 44(5), 441–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9381-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, N. J., Vicentini, C. R., & Belland, B. R. (2022). Influence of scaffolding on information literacy and argumentation skills in virtual field trips and problem-based learning for scientific problem solving. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10145-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Reichersdorfer, E., Vogel, F., Fischer, F., & Reiss, K. (2014). Effects of collaboration scripts and heuristic worked examples on the acquisition of mathematical argumentation skills of teacher students with different levels of prior achievement. Learning and Instruction, 32, 22–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155–179. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.2.9r424r0113t670l1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1999). A developmental model of critical thinking. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 16–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177186
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Katz, J. (2009). Are self-explanations always beneficial? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103(3), 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JECP.2009.03.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., & Udell, W. (2007). Coordinating own and other perspectives in argument. Thinking & Reasoning, 13(2), 90–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780600625447
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, Y. R., Fan, B., & Xie, K. (2020). The influence of a web-based learning environment on low achievers’ science argumentation. Computers & Education, 151, 103860. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2020.103860
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, H. S., Hong, Z. R., & Lawrenz, F. (2012a). Promoting and scaffolding argumentation through reflective asynchronous discussions. Computers & Education, 59(2), 378–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, T. C., Hsu, Y. S., Lin, S. S., Changlai, M. L., Yang, K. Y., & Lai, T. L. (2012b). A review of empirical evidence on scaffolding for science education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10(2), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-011-9322-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, 41, 31–48. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.004
   Google Scholar
• McGowan, J., Straus, S., Moher, D., Langlois, E. V., O’Brien, K. K., Horsley, T., Aldcroft, A., Zarin, W., Garitty, C. M., Hempel, S., Lillie, E., Tunçalp, Ӧ., & Tricco, A. C. (2020). Reporting scoping reviews—PRISMA ScR extension. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 123, 177–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2020.03.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, R., MacNeela, P., Scott, A., Treacy, P., Hyde, A., O’Brien, J., Lehwaldt, D., Byrne, A., & Drennan, J. (2008). Ambiguities and conflicting results: The limitations of the kappa statistic in establishing the interrater reliability of the Irish nursing minimum data set for mental health: A discussion paper. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45(4), 645–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.07.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®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 Behavior, 23(3), 1072–1088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., & McAlister, S. (2017). Software tools for scaffolding argumentation competence development. In Technical and vocational education and training (Vol. 23, pp. 819–839). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_38
   Google Scholar
• Oh, S., & Jonassen, D. H. (2007). Scaffolding online argumentation during problem solving. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00206.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozcinar, H. (2015). Scaffolding computer-mediated discussion to enhance moral reasoning and argumentation quality in pre-service teachers. Journal of Moral Education, 44(2), 232–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2015.1043875
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., Mcdonald, S., McGuinness, L. A. … Mckenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 372, n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJ.N160
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, S. (2022). A study on visual scaffolding design principles in web-based learning environments. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 20(2), 180–200. https://doi.org/10.34190/ejel.20.2.2604
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Puntambekar, S. (2021). Distributed scaffolding: Scaffolding students in classroom environments. Educational Psychology Review, 34(1), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10648-021-09636-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quintana, C., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (2002, April). Scaffolding design guidelines for learner-centered software environments. American Educational Research Association. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED467503
   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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313487606
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, T. D. (2006). Promoting discourse and argumentation in science teacher education. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 17(4), 323–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-006-9025-4
   Google Scholar
• Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 50(3), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02505026
   Web of Science ®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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma, P., & Hannafin, M. J. (2007). Scaffolding in technology-enhanced learning environments. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820600996972
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen, Y., & Hannafin, M. (2013). Scaffolding preservice teachers’ higher-order reasoning during technology integration: A design research inquiry. Journal of Technology & Teacher Education, 21(4), 433–459.
   Google Scholar
• Siegel, H. (1995). Why should educators care about argumentation? Informal Logic, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v17i2.2405
   Google Scholar
• Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argumentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28(2–3), 235–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500336957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stavredes, T., & Herder, T. (2014). A guide to online course design: Strategies for student success: Design of instructional strategies. Jossey Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012). Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Instructional Science, 40(2), 297–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9174-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Su, G., & Long, T. (2021). Is the text-based cognitive tool more effective than the concept map on improving the pre-service teachers’ argumentation skills? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, 100862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100862
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabak, I. (2004). Synergy: A complement to emerging patterns of distributed scaffolding. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 305–335. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1303_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tawfik, A. A., Law, V., Ge, X., Xing, W., & Kim, K. (2018). The effect of sustained vs. faded scaffolding on students’ argumentation in ill-structured problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 436–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tsai, P. S., & Tsai, C. C. (2014). College students’ skills of online argumentation: The role of scaffolding and their conceptions. Internet and Higher Education, 21, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsovaltzi, D., Puhl, T., Judele, R., & Weinberger, A. (2014). Group awareness support and argumentation scripts for individual preparation of arguments in Facebook. Computers & Education, 76, 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.03.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ucar, B., & Demiraslan-Cevik, Y. (2020). The effect of argument mapping supported with peer feedback on pre-service teachers’ argumentation skills. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 37(1), 6–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2020.1815107
   Google Scholar
• Valero Haro, A., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2019). First- and second-order scaffolding of argumentation competence and domain-specific knowledge acquisition: A systematic review. Technology, Pedagogy & Education, 28(3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1612772
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van de Pol, J., Volman, M., Oort, F., & Beishuizen, J. (2015). The effects of scaffolding in the classroom: Support contingency and student independent working time in relation to student achievement, task effort and appreciation of support. Instructional Science, 43(5), 615–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9351-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Ten steps to complex learning: A systematic approach to four-component instructional design. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vogel, F., Kollar, I., Fischer, F., Reiss, K., & Ufer, S. (2022). Adaptable scaffolding of mathematical argumentation skills: The role of self-regulation when scaffolded with CSCL scripts and heuristic worked examples. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 17(1), 39–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-022-09363-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogel, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Strohmaier, A., Reiss, K., & Fischer, F. (2021). Scaffolding argumentation in mathematics with CSCL scripts: Which is the optimal scripting level for university freshmen? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(5), 512–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2021.1961098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., & Fischer, F. (2010). Learning to argue online: Scripted groups surpass individuals (unscripted groups do not). Computers in Human Behavior, 26(4), 506–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CHB.2009.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstock, M. P. (2008). Psychological research and the epistemological approach to argumentation. Informal Logic, 26(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v26i1.435
   Google Scholar
• Weng, W. Y., Lin, Y. R., & She, H. C. (2017). Scaffolding for argumentation in hypothetical and theoretical biology concepts. International Journal of Science Education, 39(7), 877–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1310409
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, F. J., Su, C. Y., Xu, W. W., & Hu, Y. (2022). Effects of developing prompt scaffolding to support collaborative scientific argumentation in simulation-based physics learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(10), 6526–6541. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2041673
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeh, K. H., & She, H. C. (2010). On-line synchronous scientific argumentation learning: Nurturing students’ argumentation ability and conceptual change in science context. Computers & Education, 55(2), 586–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COMPEDU.2010.02.020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zohar, A. (2007). Science teacher education and professional development in argumentation. In S. Erduran & M. P. Jiménez-Aleixandre (Eds.), Argumentation in science education: Perspectives from classroom-based research (pp. 245–268). Springer Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar