Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Learning by Arguing About Evidence and Explanations

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Collaborative learning with cases characteristically involves discussing and developing shared explanations. We investigated the argumentation scheme which learners use in constructing shared explanations over evidence. We observed medical students attempting to explain how a judge had arrived at his verdict in a case of medical negligence. The students were learning within a virtual learning environment and their communication was computer mediated. We identify the dialogue type that these learners construct and show that their argumentation conforms with an abductive form of argumentation scheme (‘inference to the best explanation’). We also assessed the students’ learning and propose that it is related to particular features of this argumentation scheme.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker, M. 2003. Computer-mediated argumentative interactions for the co-elaboration of scientific notions. In Arguing to learn, eds. J. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D. Suthers. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dowell, J., and T. Gladisch. 2007. Design of argument diagramming tools for case-based group learning. In Proceedings of the 14th European conference on cognitive ergonomics, ed. W. Wong. ACM Press.

  • Goldberg, R. 2000. The contraceptive pill, negligence and causation: Views on Vadera v. Shaw. The Medical Law Review 8: 316–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honderich, T., ed. 1995. The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford University Press.

  • Jermann, P., and P. Dillenbourg. 2003. Elaborating new arguments through a CSCL script. In Arguing to learn, eds. J. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D. Suthers. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Josephson, J.R., and S.G. Josephson. 1996. Abductive inference, computation, philosophy, technology. Cambridge University Press.

  • Koschmann, T. 2003. CSCL, argumentation and deweyan inquiry. In Arguing to learn, eds. J. Andriessen, M. Baker, and D. Suthers. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnani, L. 1992. Abductive reasoning: Philosophical and educational perspective on medicine. In Advanced models of cognition in medical training and practice, eds. D.A. Evan, and V.L. Patel. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C.S. 1997. Pragmatism as a principle and method of right thinking. In The 1903 Harvard lectures on pragmatism, ed. Patricia Ann Turrisi. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. 1955. The child’s construction of reality. Routledge and Kegan Paul.

  • Popper, K.R. 1979. Objective knowledge. An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Roschelle, J. 1992. Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2(3): 235–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shirouzu, H., and N. Miyake. 2002. Learning by collaborating revisited: Individualistic vs convergent understanding. In Proceedings of the 24th annual conference of the cognitive science society, USA, 1039.

  • Simon, H.A. 1965. The logic of rational decision. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 16: 169–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A. 1977. Models of discovery and other topics in the methods of science. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W., J. Dowell, and M. Ortega-Lafuente. 1999. An authoring environment for developing training exercises in integrated emergency management. Cognition, Technology and Work 1(2): 119–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D.D., and C.D. Hundhausen. 2003. An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning processes. Journal of the Learning Sciences 12(2): 183–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 1989. Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press.

  • Walton, D. 2005. Abductive reasoning. Alabama University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge the support of the Economic and Social Research Council, award No. L328 25 3013.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science, University College London, London, WC1E 6BT, UK

    John Dowell

  2. ESRC National Centre for e-Social Science (NCeSS), University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK

    Marzieh Asgari-Targhi

Authors
  1. John Dowell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marzieh Asgari-Targhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Dowell.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dowell, J., Asgari-Targhi, M. Learning by Arguing About Evidence and Explanations. Argumentation 22, 217–233 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9060-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9060-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation