You are here:

Conceptual Change through Computer-Supported Argumentative Writing

, , TECFA, University of Geneva, Switzerland

EdMedia + Innovate Learning, in Lisbon, Portugal ISBN 978-1-880094-89-1 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC


This paper will present work done and currently being further explored in the development of computer-supported tools, pedagogical methods and instructional designs to scaffold and enable conceptual change through written argumentation. The results of the design-based research and development conducted so far will be presented, as well as future perspectives and objectives that will build and extend upon preliminary research and designs done for the development of C-SAW (Computer-Supported ArgumentativeWriter), a prototype of a computer-supported environment scaffolding self-regulation and self-evaluation during argumentative writing. In fulfilling these aims it is hoped that some gaps and remaining open questions in conceptual change theory and argumentative writing processes will be filled, so as to further develop appropriate tools and pedagogical approaches.


Benetos, K. & Schneider, D. (2011). Conceptual Change through Computer-Supported Argumentative Writing. In T. Bastiaens & M. Ebner (Eds.), Proceedings of ED-MEDIA 2011--World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications (pp. 1289-1298). Lisbon, Portugal: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved January 16, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Alamargot, D., Favart, M., & Galbraith, D. (2000). Evolution of ideas in argumentative writing: writing as a knowledge constituting process? EARLI-Writing Conference 2000. (pp. 1-9).
  2. Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers, D. (2003). Argumentation, computer support, and the educational context of confronting cognitions. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (Vol. 1, P. 1 – 25). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  3. Andriessen, J., Erkens, G., & Laak, C.V.D. (2003). Argumentation as negotiation in electronic collaborative writing. Collaborative learning, 1, 1– 25.
  4. Bell, P., & Davis, E.A. (2000). Designing Mildred: Scaffolding students(cid:1) reflection and argumentation using a cognitive software guide. Proceedings of ICLS 2000: the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, June 14th-17th, 2000, 142.
  5. Breetvelt, I., Bergh, H.V.D., & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1994). Relations Between Writing Processes and Text Quality: When and How? Cognition and Instruction, 12(2), 103-123.
  6. Chan, C., Burtis, J., & Bereiter, C. (1997). Knowledge building as a mediator of conflict in conceptual change. Ethics& Amp; Behavior, 0-40.
  7. Chinn, C.A., & Brewer, W.F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A Theoretical Framework and Implications for Science Instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(1), 1-49.
  8. Dole, J., & Sinatra, G.M. (1998). Reconceptalizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational psychologist, 33(2), 109-128.
  9. Hynd, C. (2001). Refutational texts and the change process. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(7-8), 699-714.
  10. Kachru, Y. (1997). Cultural Meaning and Contrastive Rhetoric in English Education. World Englishes, 16(3), 337-350.
  11. Kanselaar, G., Erkens, G., Andriessen, J., Prangsma, M., Veerman, A., & Jaspers, J. (2003). Designing argumentation tools for collaborative learning. Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making, 51– 73.
  12. Klein, P.D. (1999). Reopening Inquiry into Cognitive Processes in. Educational Psychology, 11(3), 203-270.
  13. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument (P. 324). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1. SAGE Publications. Leitã o, S. (2003). Evaluating and selecting counterarguments: Studies of children’ s rhetorical awareness. Written Communication, 20(3), 269-306.
  15. Limón, M. (2001). On the cognitive conflict as an instructional strategy for conceptual change: a critical appraisal. Learning and Instruction, 11(4-5), 357 – 380. Elsevier.
  16. Mason, L. (2002). Developing epistemological thinking to foster conceptual change in different domains. In M. Limón & L. Mason (Eds.), Reconsidering conceptual change: Issues in theory and practice (P. 301 – 335). Springer.
  17. Schunk, D.H. (1996). Goal and Self-Evaluative Influences during Children(cid:1)s Cognitive Skill Learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 359-382.
  18. Sinatra, G.M., & Pintrich, P.R. (2003). Intentional conceptual change. (P.R. Pintrich & G.M. Sinatra, Eds.) (P. 479). Mahwah,
  19. Vosniadou, S. (1994). Capturing and modeling the process of conceptual change. Learning and Instruction, 4(1), 45-69. Doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90018-3.
  20. Vosniadou, S. (2003). Exploring the relationships between conceptual change and intentional learning. In Gale M. Sinatra& Paul R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 377-406). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  21. Wolfe, C., & Britt, M. (2008). The locus of the myside bias in written argumentation. Thinking& Amp; Reasoning.
  22. Wolfe, C.R., Britt, M.A., Petrovic, M., Albrecht, M., & Kopp, K. (2009). The efficacy of a Web-based counterargument tutor. Behavior research methods, 41(3), 691-8.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact