Original article

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00206.x

Scaffolding online argumentation during

problem solving
S. Oh* & D.H. Jonassen†
*Korea Institute of Curriculum & Evaluation, Seoul, Korea
†221C Townsend Hall, University of Missouri-Columbia, MO, USA

Abstract In this study, constraint-based argumentation scaffolding was proposed to facilitate online
argumentation performance and ill-structured problem solving during online discussions. In
addition, epistemological beliefs were presumed to play a role in solving ill-structured
diagnosis–solution problems. Constraint-based discussion boards were implemented to scaf-
fold pre-service teachers’ online discussions about behaviour management (diagnosis–
solution) problems. The scaffolded discussion group generated more evidence notes and also
generated more hypothesis messages and hypothesis testing messages as well as problem space
construction messages. There was a relationship between epistemological beliefs and ill-
structured problem solving. Simple knowledge, omniscient authority, and fixed ability signifi-
cantly predicted problem-solving performance. A significant negative relationship between
simple knowledge and individual problem-solving performance was found. This implies that
individuals who believe in simple knowledge may be less inclined to explore more solution
alternatives. However, contrary to prediction, omniscient authority and fixed ability beliefs
were positively associated with problem-solving processes.

Keywords argumentation, computer-supported collaborative argumentation (CSCA), epistemological

beliefs, ill-structured problem, problem solving, scaffolding.

nature of the underlying reality (Boreham 1986). They

Introduction
Teachers solve a variety of problems daily, including
diagnosis, strategic performance, and design problems
(Jonassen 2000). Among the most common problems
solved regularly by teachers are classroom management
problems, where the teacher must determine the cause
of classroom misbehaviour and determine an appropri-
ate solution to that problem. This is an example of a
diagnosis–solution problem, which begins with a
symptom (e.g. an infraction of classroom decorum).
Experienced teachers recognize the pattern of symp-
toms or misbehaviours and make inferences about the
Accepted: 11 September 2006
Correspondence: Sangchul Oh, Researcher, Korea Institute of
Curriculum & Evaluation, 25-1, Seoul 110-230, Korea. Email: scoh@
kice.re.kr
must formulate hypotheses, search for relevant informa-
tion to support those hypotheses, and interpret data to
eliminate unsupported hypotheses (de Mesquita 1992).
Diagnosis–solution problems are in the middle of the
continuum between well-structured and ill-structured
problems (Jonassen 2000). Diagnosis–solution prob-
lems have vaguely defined or unclear goals and unstated
constraints; they have multiple solutions and multiple
criteria for evaluating solutions; teachers must be able
to justify a particular solution based on diagnostic rea-
soning by selecting the plausible features that led to
their solution; and there are no general rules or prin-
ciples for describing or predicting most of the cases
(Jonassen 1996).
In order to learn how to solve diagnosis–solution
problems, students must develop argumentation skills

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2007), 23, 95–110 95
96
(Elstein et al. 1978). Argumentation (also known as jus-
tification) involves constructing, refuting, and compar-
ing arguments using a variety of types of reasoning
(Andriessen et al. 2003). Argumentation has the poten-
tial for engaging students, modifying underlying
beliefs, making students’ thinking visible, and refuting
misconceptions (Baker 1999). Nussbaum and Sinatra
(2002) believe that argumentation has potential as a
conceptual change intervention because students get
involved in the deep processing or high engagement.
Baker (1999) found that students’ flawed beliefs or
claims were weakened as a result of argumentation.
Arguing helps students to compare their conceptualiza-
tions with others and recognize potential points of
conflict for further discussion (Suthers 2003). Argu-
mentation is also essential to achieving agreement on a
specific diagnosis for problems as well as deciding on
the most appropriate solution. The ability to argue effec-
tively for different positions is tantamount to solving
diagnosis–solution problems.
Several studies have shown positive effects of argu-
mentation during problem solving (Burnett 1993;
Veerman & Treasure-Jones 1999). Burnett (1993) found
that students who were involved in substantial conflict
during the writing assignment considered more alterna-
tive solutions and finally produced better papers.
Students who did not engage in the substantial conflict
compromised too soon and produced poor solutions.
Two disparate approaches to learning argumenta-
tion skills exist. The first, direct instruction, does not
always improve argumentation skills as expected. Some
research indicates that direct instruction enhances argu-
mentation skills (Sanders et al. 1994), whereas other
research demonstrates no positive effects for direct
instruction on improving argumentation skills
(Knudson 1991).
Another innovative approach to supporting argumen-
tation in online environments is to scaffold argumenta-
tion performance among students by question
prompting or constraining the kinds of comments that
students can contribute to an online discussion (Jonas-
sen & Remidez 2005). A small amount of research has
shown the positive effects of scaffolded argumentation
during problem solving. Ge and Land (2003) investi-
gated the effects of question prompts in scaffolding
college students’ problem-solving process on an ill-
structured task. They found that students working with
question prompts outperformed the other groups in
S. Oh & D.H. Jonassen
problem representation, justifications, and monitoring
and evaluation. Davis (1998) examined whether reflec-
tion prompts promoted knowledge integration for stu-
dents working on science projects in the Knowledge
Integration Environment. She found that the reflection
prompts affected students’ ability to critique solutions.
Cho and Jonassen (2002) showed that providing
constraint-based argumentation scaffolds during col-
laborative problem-solving sessions increased the
generation of coherent arguments.
An emergent technology for scaffolding argumenta-
tion is known as computer-supported collaborative
argumentation (CSCA). CSCA environments preclassi-
fying conversational attributes to fit sets of canonical
relations constrains the nature of verbal interactions
among conversants. For example, the Belvedere envi-
ronment provides four predefined argumentation
constraints (‘hypothesis’, ‘data’, ‘principles’, and
‘unspecified’) and three links (‘for’, ‘against’, and
‘and’) (Suthers 1998). These constraints form the links
or relations between the ideas that conversants produce.
Other discussion-based tools, e.g. CSILE (Scardamalia
et al. 1994), Knowledge Forum (Scardamalia 2002),
and Future Learning Environment (FLE), support social
negotiation and the explanation of informal reasoning.
Knowledge representation tools, such as IBIS (Rittel
1984), ArgueTrack (Bouwer 1998), Belvedere (Suthers
1998), and Compendium (Conklin 2003), help students
see argumentation structure, thus facilitating the con-
struction of rhetorical argumentation. In this study, we
investigated the effects of scaffolded argumentation on
argument construction and problem solving.
An important factor that has been shown to affect
argumentation and problem solving is the learner’s
epistemological beliefs (Kitchener 1983; Schraw et al.
1995). Schraw et al. (1995) found that well-structured
and ill-structured problems engaged different epistemo-
logical beliefs. Individuals who view knowledge from a
relativistic perspective adopted multiple strategies to
analyse contradiction and ambiguity on ill-structured
problems. Epistemological beliefs affect written argu-
ments about an ill-defined problem (Bendixen &
Schraw 2001). Schommer and Dunnell (1997) found
that the more students believed that the ability to learn is
fixed at birth, that learning is quick or not-at-all, and
that knowledge is unchanging, the more likely they
wrote overly simplistic solutions to problems. Finally,
Schommer-Aikins et al. (2005) found that general
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Scaffolding online argumentation
(especially beliefs in quick learning) and domain-
specific epistemological beliefs predicted academic
performance as measured by solving mathematical
problems and overall grade-point average.
The small amount of research on epistemological
beliefs, argumentation, and problem solving suggests
that understanding students’ epistemological beliefs
can inform our efforts to engage students in ill-
structured problem solving by using argumentation. To
that end, this study examined the relationships among
epistemological beliefs, argumentation, and students’
ill-structured problem solving. More specifically, this
study explored whether constraint-based argumentation
scaffolds and students’ epistemological beliefs affect
their argumentation-building and problem-solving
process while working on ill-structured diagnosis–
solution problems.
Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study was to investigate what role
constraint-based argumentation scaffolds and students’
epistemological beliefs play in argumentation while
solving ill-structured diagnosis–solution problems
during online group discussions. The research questions
that we investigated included the following:
• How does the use of constraint-based argumentation
scaffolds affect students’ online argumentation, such
as the types of argumentation generated and the argu-
mentation performance, during diagnosis–solution
problem-solving activities?
• How does the use of constraint-based argumenta-
tion scaffolds affect students’ diagnosis–solution
problem-solving processes, such as problem space
construction, hypothesis generation, hypothesis
testing, solution generation, and solution verification?
• What is the relationship between students’ epistemo-
logical beliefs and their online argumentation skills
while they are solving diagnosis–solution problems?
• What is the relationship between students’ epistemo-
logical beliefs and their problem-solving process?
• Does the use of constraint-based argumentation scaf-
folds transfer to students’ individual problem-solving
performance?
• What is the relationship between students’ epistemo-
logical beliefs and individual problem-solving
performance?
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
97
Method
This study used two different research designs: a simple
two-group comparison to examine the effects of the
treatment (constraint-based vs. threaded discussion
groups) on students’ online discussions and a post-test
only control group design to examine transfer effects on
problem solving. The independent variable was the type
of argumentation support with three conditions: scaf-
folded discussion board, threaded discussion board, and
control (no online discussion). Students who used the
scaffolded or the threaded discussion board generated
initial postings while solving behaviour management
problems and responded to other group members’
initial postings. Students in the control group did not
participate in online discussions. They were individu-
ally asked to complete and submit the two identical
classroom and behaviour management case studies
describing their arguments of problem analysis and
solution.
Participants
The subjects of this study were 58 undergraduate
students enrolled in an introductory course in a Teacher
Development Program at a large-sized state university
in the Midwestern United States during the 2004 Winter
Semester. The age range of the students was
19–21 years, and the ratio between males and females
was 1 : 3. The students were randomly assigned to dis-
cussion groups consisting of three people. Each discus-
sion group was randomly assigned to one of three
groups: scaffolded discussion group (N = 21), threaded
discussion group (N = 18), and the control group
(N = 19).
Instruments
Four different data sources were collected to investigate
the relationships of the use of the argumentation scaf-
folding, epistemological beliefs, argumentation, and
diagnosis–solution problem solving in three conditions:
with or without a constraint-based argumentation scaf-
folding tool and no use of the discussion board.
First, in order to analyse students’ online argumenta-
tion type, all of the postings authored by participants in
both treatment groups were collected from the discus-
sion boards. Each written posting during the discussions
98 S. Oh & D.H. Jonassen

Desmond is a 10-year-old fourth grader attending a large elementary school. His teacher
has asked for help with his behavior. He is not a bad kid but is constantly disrupting the
classroom. For example, if the class is having a discussion, Desmond will add a gross tidbit
to the conversation. One day he described in graphic detail how the family cat looked after
a car hit it. Desmond seemed to enjoy the disgusted looks of his classmates. Desmond is
constantly out of his seat bothering other students, poking them with his pencil or ruler,
blurting out answers, commenting without raising his hand, and interrupting lessons with
irrelevant comments. Desmond constantly complains that other students are bothering him
but when the complaint is investigated, he is the instigator. Desmond's peer relations are
poor. Other students do not want to be near him or work with him. They complain that he
makes sexual comments. Desmond denies making these comments. When he is caught
misbehaving, he always blames his problems on another student. Academically, Desmond
is not passing the fourth grade. Most written assignments are not completed or poorly
completed. He does not proofread or check his answers. Only 25% of his homework is on
time. He is highly distractible, has a very short attention span, and is impulsive. Fig 1 A case description of the individual
problem-solving test.

was classified by type of argumentation (evidence,
elaboration, verification, and rebuttal), based on the
argument coding schemes developed by Meyers et al.
(2000) and Toulmin (1958). For example, the postings
that determine the value of an argument were coded as
verification, and the postings that refute or challenge
others’ arguments were coded as rebuttal. The postings
that ask questions seeking additional information for
clarifying ideas were coded as elaboration, and the post-
ings supporting an argument with a scholar’s work, per-
sonal experience, individual beliefs, and research
findings were coded as evidence. We assumed that each
message from the scaffolded discussion group was one
argumentation type because the participants were
required to select one type of argumentation before they
submitted their message. Therefore, the unit of analysis
for each discussion group was each individual message.
A total of 277 messages were collected from the discus-
sion boards across the two discussion sessions and clas-
sified by two raters. Although per cent agreement is
used widely in research that involves the coding of
behaviour, it misleads measures that overestimate true
interrater agreement (Lombard et al. 2002). Therefore,
Cohen’s k was used to examine agreement between two
raters on coding individual messages with argumenta-
tion coding scheme. The interrater reliability between
the two raters’ coding was good, k = 0.81.
Second, each written posting during the discussions
was then reclassified by type of problem-solving activ-
ity (problem space construction, hypothesis generation,
hypothesis testing, solution generation, and solution
verification) based on the diagnosis–solution problem-
solving process. In order to verify the reliability of
the assessment of problem-solving process, interrater
reliability of each student’s problem-solving processes
was calculated. Two raters generated these ratings, k =
0.55–0.69.
Third, an Epistemic Beliefs Inventory (EBI) (Schraw
et al. 1995) was administered before the treatment to
examine students’ epistemological beliefs. The EBI
consists of 32 items that reflect beliefs about the nature
of knowledge and learning. Their exploratory factor
analysis yielded five factors, including certain knowl-
edge (e.g. truth means different things to different
people), simple knowledge (e.g. things are simpler than
most professors would have you believe), quick learn-
ing (e.g. if you don’t learn something quickly, you
won’t ever learn it), omniscient authority (e.g. when
someone in authority tells me what to do, I usually do
it), and innate ability (e.g. smart people are born that
way) (Schraw et al. 2002). Each item was rated on a
five-point Likert-type scale. The overall mean of each
factor was used as the independent variable. Our repli-
cation analysis revealed that the EBI provides the same
number of factors, the same item-to-factor loadings for
each test item, the same amount of sample variation
explained, and an acceptable test–retest correlation
among the five factors. The instrument has 0.63 to 0.87
Cronbach’s a for items within each factor.
Fourth, a case scenario (see Fig 1) was administered
to each participant after the treatment. Students’ indi-
vidual problem-solving skills were assessed using their
essay responses to the problem case. Based on the case
description, the following questions were asked:
1 What do you think the problem is? What does
Desmond do that causes concern? Please specify
what behaviour is causing concern and identify any

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Scaffolding online argumentation
other information you feel is relevant (known factors
and constraints).
2 What are the possible causes of the problem in Des-
mond’s case? Please list the most possible cause(s)
and support your hypothesis with argument and
evidence.
3 What does Desmond seem to gain from behaving this
way? Support your argument with evidence.
4 What strategies or solutions do you think are effec-
tive? What do you expect from your solution? Please
justify your solution(s) with evidence and evaluate
your solution(s).
5 What are alternative solutions? How are they com-
pared with your proposed solution? What argument
can you make or what evidence can you provide to
support that your solution is the most viable?
Individual problem-solving skills were assessed
using scoring rubrics for assessing diagnosis–solution
problem-solving process: problem space construction
(defining the problem, identifying relevant information,
searching and selecting needed information, developing
a justification); hypothesis generation (generating
initial hypotheses); hypothesis testing (generating alter-
native hypotheses, activating fault schema and consid-
ering implications of hypothesis from fault schema,
justifying reasoning in hypothesis); solution generation
[developing solution alternatives, selecting solution(s)];
solution verification [evaluating solution(s), construct-
ing argument(s), providing evidence, assessing alterna-
tive solutions]. The interrater reliability ranged from
0.54 to 0.71.
Materials
The online discussion environments of the two treat-
ment groups were exactly the same except for the
argumentation scaffolding provided to the scaffolded
discussion group. Scaffolded students posted their
analyses of two diagnosis–solution problems and solu-
tions with the help of the constraint-based discussion
board, FLE3. FLE3 is a web-based threaded conferenc-
ing environment where all student postings must be
typed before submission. Typing is a process of select-
ing the most appropriate type of statement or response
to make. Students could select from one of six message
typed: Hypothesize cause; Solution generation; Verifi-
cation; Rebuttal; Evidence; Elaboration (see Table 1 for
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
99
a full description of the scaffolds). Sentence openers
were provided in the body of the message input box,
accompanied with the chosen message type. At the
top level, students may select between ‘What is the
cause . . .?’ or ‘What should I do about it?’ When con-
structing messages responding to one of those claims,
students must select an appropriate warrant, such as ‘I
agree because . . .’ or ‘I don’t agree because . . .’ They
enter text that elaborates their message type. When
responding to a warrant, students must select a kind of
evidence to support the other students’ statements. They
can select from four options: ‘My experience is . . .’; ‘I
believe . . .’; ‘Research shows . . .’; ‘A scholar says . . .’
These sentence openers were expected to constrain
students’ discussion moves and learning interactions
to those believed to be productive for learning
(Constantino-Gonzales & Suthers 2002). In a study
examining the effects of sentence openers and elabo-
rated cases on online discussions, sentence openers
affected the frequency of disagreement, thus stimulat-
ing reflective discussion (Nussbaum et al. 2002). The
result indicates that sentence openers are useful for stu-
dents with low degrees of assertiveness and who are not
overly anxious. Students build dialogues and debate by
posting their arguments into a shared database. Students
think in structured ways that mimic argumentation
skills by defining the relationships between knowledge
types and constraining knowledge types used to
response to other message types.
Students in the threaded discussion group discussed
the same cases online using a threaded discussion board
without constraint scaffolds. Students in the control
group engaged in no discussion about the cases. They
were required to analyse the case individually (Figs 2
and 3).
Procedure
After the initial meeting to gain consent, participants
were asked to complete the EBI to measure their episte-
mological beliefs. After completing the EBI instrument,
participants in the scaffolded group were trained on how
to use the FLE3 environment and those in the threaded
group were trained on how to use the threaded discus-
sion board.
During the 2 weeks that the topic of classroom man-
agement was taught by the professor, the participants
received regular classroom instruction on classroom

Table 1. Argumentation scaffolds.
Knowledge
(message) type
Problem identification
(What information do
I need to solve the
problem?)
Hypothesize cause
(What is the cause?)
Solution generation
(What should I do
about it?)
Verification
(I agree because . . .)
Rebuttal
(I don’t agree because)
Evidence
(A scholar says . . .
My experience says . . .
I believe . . .
Research shows . . .)
Elaboration
(I can’t understand your
point. Can you describe
more specifically?)
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Description
Constructing and articulating
the problem space in which
problem solvers work out a
solution
Identifying the causes of the
problem by generating initial
hypotheses
Generating the solution(s)
to the problem
A statement that analyses
and determines value of an
argument
A statement that examines
and finds flaws or weakness
in others’ argument
Statements that provide
scholars’ work, personal
experience, individual beliefs,
and research findings to
support or rebut a stated
argument
A statement that asks
questions seeking additional
information for clarifying ideas
100
Sentence opener Guided questions
The problem is How do I define the problem?
What do you think is the problem?
What are the assumptions of the problem?
The problem is caused by What causes the problem?
My solution is What are possible solutions?
I agree with what you said How do you verify your hypothesized cause?
because How can you justify your solution?
How can you verify the accuracy or value
of your solution?
Are there any alternative solutions?
I disagree with what you What are conflicting issues?
said because How can you support your rebuttal?
Why do you not agree with the argument?
A scholar says Is your evidence from an authoritative source?
My experience is How relevant are your experiences?
I believe that What are your personal beliefs?
Research shows that What are the research findings?
Could you please clarify What are missing information in
what you said? explanation?
What is unclear explanation?
S. Oh & D.H. Jonassen
Scaffolding online argumentation 101

Pre-classified
knowledge type

Fig 2 Constrained knowledge type.

Sentence opener

Guided questions

Fig 3 Sentence opener and guided

questions.

and behaviour management. Each week of the 2-week board, FLE3, or the threaded board. All participants
period of the study, the participants in the two treatment from these two treatments posted initial messages
groups were requested to solve one classroom behav- describing their problem-solving process on the class-
iour management problem using an online discussion room and behaviour management case, so the initial

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

102
postings were available for all of the small-group
members to review. Each student was also required to
read the initial postings and to ask questions or to
provide different opinions to any member in the small
group. The participants’ online verbal interactions and
their problem-solving and argumentation process were
recorded in a database in a computer for later analysis.
Students in both treatment groups were asked to
define the problem, identify the cause of the problem,
and propose solutions (Fig 4). The difference in the
treatments among the three groups was that the treat-
ment A group received argumentation scaffolding in the
form of structured interaction; the treatment B group
received no argumentation scaffolding in the online dis-
cussion board; and the control group did not participate
in online discussions. They were required to submit an
individual case study report for problem analysis and
solution of the classroom and behaviour management
cases. During the online discussions, students in both
treatment groups analysed and discussed the same
behaviour management case studies, but only students in
the treatment groupAwere guided with online argumen-
tation scaffolds. Following the 2 weeks of discussion,
participants completed a problem-solving essay test.
Results
Before data analysis, frequencies of online argumenta-
tion types, frequencies of problem-solving types, scores
of EBI, and scores of individual problem-solving
performance were summarized. The preliminary
data analysis was to detect missing values and the accu-
racy of data entry, and to test the assumptions of multi-
variate analysis.
S. Oh & D.H. Jonassen
Fig 4 An example of students’ problem-
solving process.
Some participants were eliminated from the sample
because of lack of participation. No univariate outliers
were found. By using Mahalanobis distance with P <
0.001, no multivariate outliers were found in the data
sets. With no outliers and the case with missing values
eliminated, 44 cases remained in the three groups.
An assumption of linearity was examined using scat-
terplots and found to be satisfactory because the residu-
als scatterplots did not show any nonlinear relationships
among variables. In the same way, in order to detect het-
eroscedasticity, the scatterplots of residuals were used.
There were no patterns to the residuals plotted against
the fitted values, which indicates that the variance of the
residuals is homogenous across levels of the predicted
values, known as homoscedasticity.
Effects of the constraint-based argumentation
scaffolds on online argument building
The research question addressed the effect of the
constraint-based argumentation scaffolds on online
argument building and diagnosis–solution problem-
solving process. In order to answer these questions, all
students’ postings were collected from the two case-
study discussions. The postings were classified as one
of the four types of argumentation (verification, rebut-
tal, evidence, and elaboration). After coding all of the
postings, the frequency of each type of argumentation
was counted from each of the two discussions,
respectively.
Table 2 shows descriptive statistics for the frequency
of different types of argumentation in the online discus-
sions and indicates that verification was the most fre-
quent type of posting generated by the students.
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Scaffolding online argumentation 103

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for the frequency of four argumentation types.

Groups N Verification Rebuttal Evidence Elaboration Total

First discussion
Scaffolded 14 31 10 22 2 65
Threaded 15 60 17 2 3 82
Total 29 91 27 24 5 147
Second discussion
Scaffolded 14 42 7 9 2 60
Threaded 15 51 9 5 5 70
Total 29 93 16 14 7 130
Total discussion
Scaffolded 14 73 17 31 4 125
Threaded 15 111 26 7 8 152
Total 29 184 43 38 12 277

The scores of the four types of argumentation were
summed and included in the statistical analysis.
Descriptive statistics for the scores of argumentation
performance between the two treatment groups across
two discussions are presented in Table 2. A manova
was employed to analyse the effects of the constraint-
based argumentation scaffolds on students’ online argu-
mentation types. The combined dependent variables
were significantly affected by argumentation scaffold-
ing, F1,27 = 5.99, P < 0.01. To investigate the impact of
the use of argumentation scaffolds on the dependent
variables, follow-up anova tests were performed.
Univariate tests revealed that there were significant sta-
tistical differences in the evidence variable (F = 16.55,
P < 0.001) and the verification variable (F = 4.58,
P < 0.05). The scaffolded discussion group posted
significantly more evidence notes than the threaded dis-
cussion group. However, the threaded discussion group
posted significantly more verification notes than the
scaffolded discussion group. No other argumentation
types differed significantly between groups.
A multiple repeated measures (two discussions)
anova with between-subjects factors (two groups) for
the argumentation performance scores was conducted
because there were two discussions within subjects and
two groups with different treatments. The result for
within-subjects by between-subject interaction effects
(an interaction for time by group effects and time by
argumentation by group effects) was performed to test
the hypothesis. The results showed that there was no
significant effect for the time-by-group interaction,
F1,27 = 0.887, P = 0.355, or for the time-by-argument
interaction, F2,69 = 2.105, P = 0.116. This means that
there was no difference between the two groups’ perfor-
mance across the two discussions. Specifically, the
treatments did not affect students’ performance in argu-
mentation building throughout time. The main effect of
time of measurement was not significant, F1,27 = 0.413,
P = 0.526, h2 = 0.015.
In order to assess differences among the argumenta-
tion types used by the students, an anova showed that
there was a significant main effect for argument,
F2,157 = 60.215, P = 0.000, indicating that there was
a significant difference among the four types of
argumentation. The verification and the rebuttal scores
were higher than the other argumentation types in the
argumentation performance. This indicates that stu-
dents provided more verification and rebuttals than pro-
viding evidence and asking more elaboration. There
was also a significant effect for the argument-by-group
interaction, F2,157 = 4.161, P = 0.013, indicating that
there were statistically significant differences between
the two groups in the argumentation performance. The
scaffolded group produced more evidence messages,
while the threaded group produced many more verifica-
tion messages. There was a three-way interaction
between time, argument, and group, F2,69 = 5.328,
P = 0.002. The threaded group produced proportion-
ately more verification messages in the first case than
they did in the second.
Effects of the constraint-based argumentation
scaffolds on problem-solving process
The second research question addressed the effect of
the constraint-based discussion board on the types of

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

104 S. Oh & D.H. Jonassen

Table 3. Frequency of problem-solving

Groups PSC HG HT SG SV Total process.

First problem solving

Scaffolded discussion 13 14 12 13 11 63
Threaded discussion 14 14 6 14 10 58
Total 27 28 18 27 21 121
Second problem solving
Scaffolded discussion 11 10 10 10 7 48
Threaded discussion 12 10 4 13 12 51
Total 23 20 14 23 19 99
Total problem solving
Scaffolded discussion 24 24 22 23 18 111
Threaded discussion 26 24 10 27 22 109
Total 50 48 32 50 40 220

PSC, problem space construction; HG, hypothesis generation; HT, hypothesis testing; SG,
solution generation; SV, solution verification.

problem-solving processes engaged in by the students.
Frequency counts of each problem-solving message
type are included in Table 3. A multiple repeated mea-
sures (two discussions) anova with between-subjects
factors (two groups) for the problem-solving processes
was conducted because there were two discussions
within the same subjects and two groups with different
treatments. The result for within-subjects-by-between-
subjects interaction effects (an interaction for
time-by-group effects and time-by-problem-solving
process-by-group effects) was performed.
The results showed that there was no statistical
effects for the time, F1,27 = 0.273, P = 0.606, the time
and group interaction, F2,27 = 0.7151, P = 0.573, the
time and problem-solving process, F3,88 = 0.808, P =
0.503, or any three-way interaction between time,
problem-solving process, and group, F3,88 = 0.147,
P = 0.943. This indicates that neither treatment had any
effect on the problem-solving process across the two
cases.
The only significant main effect for the problem-
solving process, F2,74 = 24.654, P = 0.000, indicated a
statistically significant difference among the problem-
solving actions generated by the students. In the
follow-up analysis, a manova was employed to
compare the scores on the five problem-solving pro-
cesses among the two groups at each case problem
solving. When the mean scores of the five problem-
solving processes were employed as dependent vari-
ables to examine how the use of the constraint-based
argumentation scaffolding affected students’ problem-
solving processes, the manova results were statistically
significant, F1,27 = 2.914, P < 0.05. The univariate
anova tests indicate that there were significant differ-
ences in problem space construction, F = 4.801, P =
0.037, hypothesis generation, F = 10.134, P = 0.004,
and hypothesis test, F = 10.153, P = 0.004. The univari-
ate F-tests of group differences showed that the scaf-
folded discussion group generated more problem space
comments, more hypotheses, and more testing of
hypotheses.
Relationship between epistemological beliefs and
online argumentation performance
The students’ epistemological beliefs include five factor
scores from the EBI (simple knowledge, certain knowl-
edge, omniscient authority, quick learning, and fixed
ability). In order to identify relationships between
students’ epistemological beliefs and their online
argumentation performance, a multiple regression was
conducted to predict the strength of the five factors in
epistemological beliefs that might affect students’
online argumentation performance. The five variables
were entered into the regression analysis using the step-
wise procedure. There was a significant linear relation-
ship between simple knowledge and the score of online
argumentation performance, F1,28 = 6.234, P = 0.019.
The multiple regression identified Simple Knowledge
as the strongest predictor of the scores of online
argumentation performance. The multiple regression
statistics indicated that the students’ tendency to believe
simple knowledge accounted for 19% of the variance in
the online argumentation performance.

© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Scaffolding online argumentation
Relationship between epistemological beliefs and
problem-solving process
A multiple regression was conducted to determine
whether any of the five epistemological factors affected
the problem-solving process. A stepwise multiple
regression identified Omniscient Authority as the stron-
gest predictor of the performance of solution verifica-
tion, F1,43 = 15.279, P = 0.000. The multiple regression
statistics indicate that students’ tendency to believe
omniscient authority accounts for 27% of the variance
in solution verification.
The effects of the constraint-based argumentation
scaffolding on the individual problem-solving
performance
An anova was conducted to examine the effect of the
constraint-based scaffolded discussion board on a
student’s individual problem-solving performance. The
dependent variable was the student’s individual
problem-solving score obtained from the written essay
test. All students, including the control group, partici-
pated in this activity. The two treatment groups had
slightly higher scores than the control group on the
problem-solving essay test. The anova results,
however, showed that there was a moderately signifi-
cant difference among the three groups in the individual
problem-solving performance, F2,43 = 3.100, P = 0.056.
Relationship between epistemological beliefs and
students’ individual problem-solving performance
A stepwise multiple regression was completed between
individual problem-solving performance as the depen-
dent variable and five factors in epistemological beliefs
as independent variables. Only two of the independent
variables contributed significantly to the prediction
of individual problem-solving performance, Simple
Knowledge (sri2 = 0.14) and Fixed Ability (sri2 = 0.10).
Twenty-four per cent (21% adjusted) of the variability
in individual problem solving was predicted by
knowing scores on these two independent variables.
Discussion
This study examined the effects of argumentation
scaffolding on argumentation and problem-solving
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
105
processes. The results showed that the scaffolded
groups produced more evidence messages than the
threaded groups, which produced more verification
messages. Of the types of argumentative statements,
evidence is the most important for justifying diagnoses
or solutions, so the fact that the scaffolded groups gen-
erated more evidence messages provides positive evi-
dence for the effects of argumentation scaffolding. This
finding is consistent with the results of studies by Tan
(2000) and Cho and Jonassen (2002), who reported that
a CSCA group generated more grounds (evidence)
arguments than the control group.
The threaded discussion group generated more verifi-
cation notes than the scaffolded group. We interpret this
result as support for the belief that students using the
threaded discussion board expended more effort in
explaining meaning rather than supporting or challeng-
ing others’ arguments (Veerman & Treasure-Jones
1999). Challenging perspectives would have generated
rebuttal notes, which neither group generated in signifi-
cant numbers. Although argumentation scaffolds for
rebuttal (I don’t agree because . . .) and elaboration (I
can’t understand your point.) were provided, neither
discussion group used them very much to generate
rebuttals and elaborations. This result replicates the
findings of earlier research regarding rebuttals during
group discussions (Tan 2000; Cho & Jonassen 2002).
The willingness of students to rebut each other or
engage in spirited arguments is unfortunately not part of
the American classroom culture. Students are reluctant
to challenge others’ postings by stating rebuttals or
elaboration for fear that it might harm peers’ feelings.
Students tend to reply to others with familiar forms of
discourse types, such as ‘I agree’, rather than using
more challenging argument types such as evidence or
elaboration (Marttunen 1998; Nussbaum et al. 2002).
With respect to epistemological beliefs, students with
less developed epistemological beliefs, especially those
who believe in simple knowledge, might not see the
point in generating rebuttals (Nussbaum & Bendixen
2003).
In addition to the frequency of online argumentation
type, we also tested hypotheses related to practice
effect. Although there was a small increase in the
argumentation performance scores for the scaffolded
discussion group from the first discussion to the second
discussion, the results of the study showed that there
was statistically no difference between the two groups
106
in the performance of argumentation across the two
discussions. Specifically, the treatments did not affect
students’ performance in argumentation building over
time. Follow-up tests showed that there were no signifi-
cant differences in the total scores of the argumentation
performance between the first and the second
discussions. Perhaps the treatment period was too short
or the constraint-based argumentation tool was not used
effectively.
The results of this study showed that there were dif-
ferences in students’ problem-solving processes. Spe-
cifically the scaffolded discussion group performed
better than the control group in problem hypothesis
testing. While the scaffolded discussion group per-
formed significantly better than the threaded discussion
group in hypothesis testing, there were no significant
differences detected in the problem space construction,
hypothesis generation, and solution verification. This
investigation revealed a partial effect of the constraint-
based argumentation scaffold on hypothesis testing in
solving ill-structured problems. Students in the scaf-
folded discussion group generated more alternative
hypotheses and justified their arguments in the hypoth-
eses than the other two groups. However, the difference
was not sufficient to affect the total scores of problem-
solving performance. In addition, following the treat-
ments, no significant difference in individual problem
solving scores was found. Thus, based on the empirical
data, it is inconclusive whether the use of the constraint-
based argumentation scaffolding could affect students’
performance in problem-solving processes.
The current study provided equivocal support (P =
0.056) for improvements in students’ performance in
solving ill-structured problems as a result of constraint-
based scaffolding, as did Cho and Jonassen (2002) and
Van Bruggen et al. (2003). Because the two treatment
groups received instruction from the same instructor
regarding the classroom management problem solving,
the effects of the constraint-based argumentation tool
on problem solving might not have been as strong. That
is, through classroom discussions and activities, the
students learned how to identify problems, generate
hypotheses, and propose solutions for each classroom
management case study. Therefore, the students might
have been familiar with the classroom management
case studies, indicating that the effects of the constraint-
based argumentation scaffolding were not manifested.
Another possibility is that students have a tendency to
S. Oh & D.H. Jonassen
solve problems quickly, rather than think over alterna-
tive analyses and solutions (Schoenfeld 1983). Ill-
structured problem solving requires students to build
problem space, generate multiple hypotheses, and
represent personal arguments to justify their solutions.
However, students with a belief that solving problems
are to give quickly one correct answer and to use correct
rules or principles might avoid multiple problem-
solving analyses and solutions. Further evidence came
from a descriptive analysis of students’ epistemological
beliefs. Students’ beliefs about simple knowledge were
above average.
In this study, epistemological beliefs predicted online
argumentation performance and frequency of evidence
generation during online discussions. Data from the
scores on the online argumentation performance indi-
cated that simple knowledge had a positive relationship
with the online argumentation performance. In addition,
students with simple knowledge generated more evi-
dence to support their arguments during online discus-
sions. The more students believed that knowledge was
simple, the better the online argumentation perfor-
mance. This finding indicates that students who view
knowledge as simple, requiring less time and effort to
solve problems, are more likely to argue based on evi-
dence. This is inconsistent with earlier findings that epis-
temological complexity and uncertainty were negatively
related to avoiding arguments (Nussbaum & Bendixen
2002). There is the possibility that students with simple
knowledge belief see little point in argumentation and
persist with their own argument, resulting in consistent
arguments. However, more research is needed to address
this inconsistent finding between students’ simple
knowledge belief and their online argumentation types
and performance. An individual who holds simple
beliefs about the structure of knowledge seems more
likely to reduce most judgemental tasks to their most
basic components, thereby eliminating the experience of
uncertainty (Nussbaum & Bendixen 2003).
So far, there has been no research on the relationship
of students’ simple knowledge belief in epistemological
beliefs and their online argumentation. Even if the result
of this study did not manifest the strong relationship
between simple knowledge belief and online argumen-
tation, the finding might suggest that online argumenta-
tion patterns or performance could be related to
students’ epistemological beliefs. Further research on
online argumentation analysis might contribute to
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Scaffolding online argumentation
investigate what role students’ epistemological beliefs
play in arguing through online discussions.
Epistemological beliefs, as expected, had an effect on
problem-solving performance. The results of this study
showed that omniscient authority was positively corre-
lated with hypothesis generation, hypothesis testing,
and solution verification while students were involved
in solving ill-structured classroom management
problems. Also, belief in omniscient authority was the
strongest predictor of the solution verification process.
In particular, the more students believed that authorities
have access to knowledge that others do not, the better
they did in solving classroom management problems.
Unlike previous research, a belief in omniscient
authority was associated with performance in solving
problems. Current results contrast with previous
research that has found a negative relationship between
a belief in omniscient authority and achievement in
problem solving. Previous studies on the relationship
between epistemological beliefs and problem solving
showed that students less likely to believe in omniscient
authority performed better in terms of achievement in a
hypermedia learning environment and text problem
solving (Schommer 1990; Bendixen & Hartley 2003).
One possible reason for the positive relationship
between students’ belief in omniscient authority and
their problem solving is that students’ epistemological
belief was not mature in terms of omniscient authority
belief (M = 2.5). Even if the mean score of omniscient
belief was below the average score, students may have
expected the acceptance of their solution verification
from teachers. Given the time limitations, the belief
that teachers should approve problem solutions may
have helped students in evaluating their own solutions
and generating more alternative solutions before they
submitted their problem solving. It is also very likely
that students still believe that all problems have right
answers that are determined by an omniscient
authority.
In the present study, simple knowledge and fixed
ability were revealed as predictors of individual
problem-solving performance on the learning outcome
measure. Simple knowledge and fixed ability contrib-
uted significantly to the prediction of individual
problem-solving performance. Contrary to the positive
relationship between simple knowledge and online
argumentation performance, there was a negative rela-
tionship between simple knowledge and individual
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
107
problem-solving performance after the classroom man-
agement case study. Individuals who believe in simple
analysis and solutions to the ill-structured classroom
management problems may be less inclined to explore
more solution alternatives. The finding suggests that the
stronger a student believes that knowledge is simple, the
lower the student performs on the ill-structured problem
solving.
However, beliefs in fixed ability were positively
related to students’ problem-solving performance on
the learning outcome measure. The more students
believed that ability to learn is innate and fixed, the
better they performed in solving problems. This finding
is also inconsistent with previous research that fixed
ability is negatively related to problem solving (Schom-
mer 1990; Williams 2001). This finding did not repli-
cate those of previous studies, the results of which had
shown a negative relationship between the acceptance
of fixed ability and problem-solving scores (Bendixen
et al. 1998; Williams 2001)
Although some of the results were inconsistent with
previous research, the findings indicated that simple
knowledge, omniscient authority, and fixed ability
explained a significant proportion of variance over per-
formance on problem solving. This conclusion is con-
sistent with those of Schommer (1990), who found that
ill-defined problem solving was related to multiple
epistemological beliefs.
Implications
Solving ill-structured problems is difficult for univer-
sity students, in part because they require students to
justify or argue for their solutions and against others.
This study has supported other studies in suggesting
that argumentation can be supported by using
constraint-based discussion boards. However, even
when using those tools, students need to be coached on
using alternative forms of discussion. In this study,
rebuttals and elaborations, which are very important to
argumentation supporting problem solving, were
underutilized. The nature of that coaching is an issue for
research.
Another reason that argumentation and problems
solving are difficult, especially for American students,
are their epistemological dispositions towards simple
knowledge and omniscient authority. Such dispositions,
we fear, are artefacts of our educational system in which
108
teachers and professors attempt to convey information
in its simplest form and insist that students understand
their perspectives. For these students, argumentation
and ill-structured problems are especially difficult,
because they require that students understand, generate,
and reply to multiple perspectives. Constraint-based
discussion boards are likely to assist these students only
if they are used consistently.
Limitations
Because of constraints in conducting classroom
research in the United States, this study exhibited a
number of limitations. First, the sample size was rela-
tively small. A larger sample would likely have demon-
strated more obvious differences in performance. Also,
the effects of the constraint-based discussion board
were established by comparing the performance of stu-
dents with those using a traditional threaded discussion
board. No control group comparisons were possible
because the control group did not participate in collabo-
rative activities. The contradictory nature of some of the
results is common in this kind of research. They may be
due, in part, to the levels of motivation exhibited by the
participants in the study. Finally, these results may not
be generalizable beyond pre-service teachers.
Summary
This study suggests that constraint-based discussion
scaffolds can affect online argumentation types and
performance when solving ill-structured diagnosis–
solution problems. Argumentation scaffolding provided
in the form of argument structure helps novice problem
solvers to generate more evidence supporting their
arguments. Computer-based scaffolding supports
reflection of evidence-based explanation by prompting
students to negotiate or struggle with explaining the sig-
nificance of data (Zembal-Saul & Land 2002). Novice
problem solvers outperformed the other groups in
problem representation, justification, and monitoring
and evaluation after being given guided question
prompts (Ge & Land 2003). Therefore, the constraint-
based argumentation scaffolding discussion board
may be a useful way of stimulating reflective online
discussions.
Additionally, the study found that epistemological
beliefs were related to online argumentation perfor-
mance and problem-solving performance. The results
S. Oh & D.H. Jonassen
of this study add to a growing body of literature on the
role of epistemological beliefs on argumentation and
problem solving (Schraw et al. 1995; Jonassen et al.
2002; Nussbaum & Bendixen 2002). Notable was the
role of a belief in simple knowledge, which extends
prior research on solving ill-structured problems. The
current study has identified some key epistemological
beliefs that enter into important epistemological belief
studies, and has extended this work into technology-
enhanced learning environments.
References
Andriessen J., Baker M. & Suthers D. (2003) Argumentation,
computer support, and the educational context of confront-
ing cognitions. In Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cogni-
tions in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning
Environments (eds J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers),
pp. 1–25. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Baker M.J. (1999) Argumentation and constructive
interaction. In Foundations of Argumentative Text Process-
ing (eds J. Andriessen & P. Coier), pp. 179–202. University
of Amsterdam Press, Amsterdam.
Bendixen L.D. & Hartley K. (2003) Successful learning with
Hypermedia: the role of epistemological beliefs and meta-
cognitive awareness. Journal of Educational and Comput-
ing Research 28, 15–30.
Bendixen L.D. & Schraw G. (2001) Why do epistemological
beliefs affect ill-defined problem solving? Paper presented
at the meeting of the American Educational Research Asso-
ciation, Seattle, WA.
Bendixen L.D., Schraw G. & Dunkle M.E. (1998) Epistemic
beliefs and moral reasoning. Journal of Psychology 132,
187–200.
Boreham N.C. (1986) A model of efficiency in diagnostic
problem solving: implications for the education of
diagnosticians. Instructional Science 15, 191–211.
Bouwer A. (1998) ArgueTrack: the design of an argumenta-
tive dialogue interface. Paper presented at the 2nd Interna-
tional Workshop on Human-Computer Conversation,
Bellagio, Italy, 13–15, July 1998.
Burnett R.E. (1993) Decision-making during the collaborative
planning of co-authors. In Hearing Ourselves Think: Cog-
nitive Research in the College Writing Classroom (eds A.
Penrose & B. Sitko), pp. 125–146. Oxford University Press,
New York.
Cho K.L. & Jonassen D.H. (2002) The effects of argumenta-
tion scaffolds on argumentation and problem solving. Edu-
cational Technology Research and Development 50, 5–22.
Conklin J. (2003) Dialog mapping: reflections on an indus-
trial strength case study. In Visualizing Argumentation:
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Scaffolding online argumentation
Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-
Making (eds P.A. Kirschner, S.J. Buckingham Shum, C.S.
Carr), pp. 117–136. Springer-Verlag, London.
Constantino-Gonzales M.A. & Suthers D. (2002) Coaching
collaboration in a computer-mediated learning environ-
ment. In Proceedings of Computer Support for Collabora-
tive Learning 2002 (ed. G. Stahl), pp. 583–584. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Davis E.A. (1998) Scaffolding students’ reflection for science
learning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley, CA.
Elstein A.S., Schulman L.S. & Sprafka S.A. (1978) Medical
Problem Solving: An Analysis of Clinical Reasoning.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ge X. & Land S.M. (2003) Scaffolding students’ problem-
solving processes in an ill-structured task using question
prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology
Research and Development 51, 21–38.
Jonassen D.H. (1996) Scaffolding diagnostic reasoning in
case-based-learning environments. Journal of Computing
in Higher Education 8, 48–68.
Jonassen D.H. (2000) Toward a design theory of problem
solving. Educational Technology: Research & Develop-
ment 48, 63–85.
Jonassen D.H. & Remidez H. (2005) Mapping alternative dis-
course structures onto computer conferences. International
Journal of Knowledge and Learning 1, 113–129.
Jonassen D.H., Marra R.M. & Palmer E. (2002) Epistemo-
logical development: an implicit entailment of constructiv-
ist learning environments. In Curriculum, Plans, and
Process of Instructional Design: International Perspec-
tives (eds N.M. Seel. & S. Dijkstra), pp. 75–88. Lawrence
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Kitchener K.S. (1983) Cognition, metacognition, and
epistemic cognition. Human Development 26, 222–
232.
Knudson R.E. (1991) Effects of instructional strategies, grade
and sex on students’ persuasive writing. Journal of Experi-
mental Education 59, 141–152.
Lombard M., Snyder-Duch J. & Bracken C.C. (2002) Content
analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting
of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research
28, 587–604.
Marttunen M. (1998) Electronic mail as a forum for argumen-
tative interaction in higher education studies. Journal of
Educational Computing Research 18, 397–405.
de Mesquita P.B. (1992) Diagnostic problem solving of
school psychologists: scientific method or guesswork?
Journal of School Psychology 30, 269–291.
Meyers R.A., Brashers D.E. & Haner J. (2000) Majority-
minority influence: identifying argumentative patterns and
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
109
predicting argument-outcome links. Journal of Communi-
cation 50, 3–30.
Nussbaum E.M. & Bendixen L.D. (2002) The effect of per-
sonality, ability, & epistemological beliefs on students’
argumentation behavior. Poster presented at the American
Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, New
Orleans, LA.
Nussbaum E.M. & Bendixen L.D. (2003) How epistemology
and personality affect students’ dispositions to argue. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educa-
tional Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Nussbaum. E.M. & Sinatra G.M. (2002) On the opposite side:
argument and conceptual engagement in physics. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Nussbaum E.M., Hartley K., Sinatra G.M., Reynolds R.E. &
Bendixen L.D. (2002) Enhancing the quality of on-line
discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New Orleans,
LA.
Rittel H. (1984) Second generation design methods.
Reprinted in Developments in Design Methodology (ed. N.
Cross), pp. 317–327. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Sanders J.A., Wiseman R.L. & Gass R.H. (1994) Does teach-
ing argumentation facilitate critical thinking? Communica-
tion Reports 7, 27–35.
Scardamalia M. (2002) CSILE/Knowledge Forum®. In Edu-
cation and Technology: An Encyclopedia, pp. 183–192.
ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara.
Scardamalia M., Bereiter C. & Lamon M. (1994) The CSILE
project: trying to bring the classroom into world 3. In Class-
room Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Class-
room Practice (ed. K. McGilly), pp. 201–228. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Schoenfeld A. (1983) Beyond the purely cognitive: belief
systems, social cognitions, and metacognitions as driving
forces in intellectual performance. Cognitive Science 7,
329–363.
Schommer M. (1990) Effects of beliefs about the nature of
knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology 82, 498–504.
Schommer M. & Dunnell P.A. (1997) Epistemological beliefs
of gifted high school students. Roeper Review 19, 153–
156.
Schommer-Aikins M., Duell O.K. & Hutter R. (2005) Episte-
mological beliefs, mathematical problem-solving beliefs,
and academic performance of middle school students.
Elementary School Journal 105, 289–304.
Schraw G., Dunkle M.E. & Bendixen L.D. (1995) Cognitive
processes in well-defined and ill-defined problem solving.
Applied Cognitive Psychology 9, 523–538.
110
Schraw G., Bendixen L.D. & Dunkle M.E. (2002) Develop-
ment and validation of the Epistemic Belief Inventory
(EBI). In Personal Epistemology: The Psychology of
Beliefs about Knowledge and Knowing (eds B. Hofer & P.
Pintrich), pp. 261–275. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Suthers D. (1998) Representations for scaffolding collabora-
tive inquiry on ill-structured problems. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, San Diego, CA.
Suthers D. (2003) Representational guidance for collaborative
inquiry. In Arguing to Learn: Confronting Cognitions in
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Environ-
ments (eds J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers),
pp. 27–46. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Tan S.C. (2000) Supporting collaborative problem solving
through computer-supported collaborative argumentation.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, PA.
Toulmin S. (1958) The Uses of Argument. University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Van Bruggen J.M., Boshuizen H.P.A. & Kirschner P.A.
(2003) A cognitive framework for cooperative problem
S. Oh & D.H. Jonassen
solving with argument visualization. In Visualizing Argu-
mentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educa-
tional Sense-Making (eds P.A. Kirschner, S. Buckingham
Shum & C.S. Carr), pp. 25–47. Springer-Verlag, London.
Veerman A.L. & Treasure-Jones T. (1999) Software for
problem solving through collaborative argumentation.
In Foundations of Argumentative Text Processing (eds J.
Andriessen & P. Coirier), pp. 203–339. University Press,
Amsterdam.
Williams D. (2001) The impact of epistemological beliefs
on middle school student’s knowledge acquisition and
problem solving while working in a hypermedia-supported
problem-based learning environment. Paper presented at
the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hyper-
media, & Educational Telecommunication, Tampere,
Finland.
Zembal-Saul C. & Land S.M. (2002) Scaffolding the con-
struction of scientific arguments by prospective teachers
using inquiry-empowering technologies. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
© 2007 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd