The Effectiveness of Computer-Supported Collaborative Dialogue in Schools

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Apr 23, 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2026.751

Main Article Content

Baruch Schwarz
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
Ziv Lison
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Noa Brandel
The Open University of Israel, Israel

Abstract

Effectiveness has received bad press in Dialogic Education as it generally points to improvements in a stable educational context, while dialogic pedagogies aim at educational change. The present paper examines effectiveness in senses that are compatible with both the educational system and the aims of Dialogic Education. Institutional and organizational constraints limit the implementation of practices such as peer-led computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) discussions in schools. In an intervention that handled these constraints, we compared the outcomes of small-group peer-led CSCL discussions around texts and teacher-led whole-class face-to-face discussions around the same texts. The outcomes compared were individual historical essays. We relied on a methodological tool developed by Monte-Sano (2016) to measure two qualitative aspects of students' essays: argumentation and historical reasoning. Two groups of high-school students (N1 = 24; N2 = 21) participated in discussions around historical texts. The second author, who was the group's teacher, facilitated a discussion with the first group. The second group was divided into small groups, which interacted through a CSCL tool. There was no significant difference in the quality of essays written after participation in a peer-led dialogue through a CSCL tool, compared to those written after participation in a teacher-led face-to-face discussion – in terms of either argumentation or historical reasoning. However, the students who participated in peer-led collaborative dialogue did reveal distinctive epistemological insights. These results have had implications for the Ministry of Education's policy, which recently recognized this measure of essay quality as part of the history matriculation exam. In addition, the analysis of the peer-led CSCL group discussions suggests that a dialogical space was created. The intervention was thus effective in terms of standardized learning outcomes, dissemination of new dialogic practices, and ontological-dialogical changes.

Article Details

How to Cite
Schwarz, B., Lison, Z., & Brandel, N. (2026). The Effectiveness of Computer-Supported Collaborative Dialogue in Schools. Dialogic Pedagogy: A Journal for Studies of Dialogic Education, 14(1), A54-A84. https://doi.org/10.5195/dpj.2026.751
Issue
Vol. 14 No. 1 (2026)
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.

Revised 7/16/2018. Revision Description: Removed outdated link. 

Author Biographies

Baruch Schwarz, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

Baruch Schwarz is a Professor (Emeritus) at the School of Education, the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. His expertise ranges from educational psychology to the development of mathematical/scientific reasoning. He is a specialist in the role of argumentation in learning and development. He has led several R&D European projects on the use of technologies to boost deliberative argumentation, collaborative learning, mathematical problem solving, and “Learning to Learn” skills. He is also involved in research on the moderation of (computer-supported) collaborative learning. He is the director of the Israeli Center of Dialogic Education. He is active in the study of learning in Yeshivas (Schools of study in Jewish education).

Ziv Lison, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Ziv Lison is a PhD candidate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s School of Education and a pedagogical leader at the Israeli Ministry of Education’s Pedagogical Secretariat. His research focuses on applying Jürgen Habermas’s principles of communicative action to dialogic pedagogy to mitigate social polarization and address structural power imbalances in intergroup discourse. Lison leads a nationwide initiative integrating Civics education with "Shared Life" education, designing (AI-assisted) alternative assessments based on synchronous dialogues between students from diverse sectors (e.g.,  secular and religious, Jewish and Arab). His work strives to transform "objectified" relations into inclusive, humanizing, argumentative dialogue within conflictual environments.

Noa Brandel, The Open University of Israel, Israel

Noa Brandel is a postdoctoral fellow at the Research Center for Innovation in Learning Technologies at the Open University of Israel. She holds a PhD in Linguistics from Tel Aviv University, where she was awarded several scholarships, including the Rotenstreich Scholarship for outstanding PhD students in the Humanities. Noa previously completed a postdoctoral fellowship in Educational Psychology at the Center for Dialogic Education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and worked as a visiting scholar in the Section of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics at the University of Cambridge. Her research lies at the intersection of theoretical and applied linguistics, focusing on processes of language learning and instruction in the areas of computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) and (digital) dialogic pedagogy, with an emphasis on the assessment of learners' proficiency and interaction using AI-based tools. She aims to contribute to the design of effective instructional practices across diverse educational contexts.

References

Andriessen, J. & Schwarz, B. (2009). Argumentative design. In N. Muller Mirza & A.-N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.), Argumentation and Education: Theoretical Foundations and Practices (pp. 145–174). New York: Springer.

Arnseth, H. C. & Ludvigsen, S. (2006). Approaching institutional contexts: Systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 1, 167–185 DOI 10.1007/s11412-006-8874-3

Asterhan C. S. C. & Schwarz, B. B. (2007). The effects of monological and dialogical argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. The Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 626-639.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Bächtold, M., Pallarès, G., De Checchi, K., & Munier, V. (2022). Combining debates and reflective activities to develop students' argumentation on socioscientific issues. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, (1), 1–46.

Baker, M. J., Andriessen, J., & Schwarz, B. B. (2019). Collaborative argumentation-based learning. In R. Wegerif, N. Mercer and L. Major (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Dialogic Education (pp. 76–88). Routledge.‏

Barzilai, S., & Chinn, C. A. (2018). On the goals of epistemic education: Promoting apt epistemic performance. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(3), 353-389.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77–101.‏

Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition, 2(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.72

Buber, M. (1923). Ich und Du. Leipzig: Insel-Verlag.

De La Paz, S., Monte‐Sano, C., Felton, M., Croninger, R., Jackson, C., & Piantedosi, K. W. (2017). A historical writing apprenticeship for adolescents: Integrating disciplinary learning with cognitive strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 52(1), 31–52.

Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: From design to orchestration. Technology-enhanced learning: Principles and products, 3–19.

Elkin, L. A., Kay, M., Higgins, J. J., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2021). An aligned rank transform procedure for multifactor contrast tests. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '21) (pp. 754–768). https://doi.org/10.1145/3472749.3474784

Engle, R. A. & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.

Hemberger, L., Kuhn, D., Matos, F., & Shi, Y. (2017). A Dialogic Path to Evidence-Based Argumentive Writing. The Journal of the learning Sciences, 26(4), 575–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1336714

Hennessy, S., Howe, C., Mercer, N., & Vrikki, M. (2020). Coding classroom dialogue: Methodological considerations for researchers. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100404

Howe, C., Hennessy, S., Mercer, N., Vrikki, M., & Wheatley, L. (2019). Teacher-student dialogue during classroom teaching: Does it really impact on student outcomes? Journal of the Learning Sciences, 28, 1–51.

Howe, C., McWilliam, D., & Cross, G. (2005). Chance favours only the prepared mind: Incubation and the delayed effects of peer collaboration. British Journal of Psychology, 96(1), 67-93.

Järvelä, S. & Rosé, C. P. (2020). Advocating for group interaction in the age of COVID-19. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(2), 143-147.

Jeong, H., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Jo, K. (2019). Ten years of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: A meta-analysis of CSCL in STEM education during 2005–2014. Educational Research Review 28, 100284.

Kay, M., Elkin, L.A., Higgins, J.J., & Wobbrock, J.O. (2021). ARTool: Aligned rank transform. [R] package with documentation and two vignettes.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.

Kuhn, D., Goh, W., Iordanou, K., & Shaenfield, D. (2008). Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argumentation skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development, 79, 1310–1328.

Kuhn, D., Hemberger, L., & Khait, V. (2016). Argue with Me. Argument as a Path to Developing Students' Thinking and Writing. Routledge. Taylor and Francis.

Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition & Instruction, 31, 456–496.

Looi, C.-K, S. Hyo-Jeong So, H-J., Toh, Y., & Chen, W. (2011). The Singapore experience: Synergy of national policy, classroom practice and design research. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 9–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9102-8

Matuk, C., Tissenbaum, M., & Schneider, B. (2019). Real-time orchestrational technologies in computer-supported collaborative learning: an introduction to the special issue. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(3), 251–260.

Michaels, S., O’Connor C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative Discourse Idealized and Realized: Accountable Talk in the Classroom and in Civic Life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297.

Monte-Sano, C. (2016). Argumentation in history classrooms: a key path to understanding the discipline and preparing citizens. Theory into practice, 55(4), 311–319.‏

R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context. New York: Oxford University Press.

Salter, K. C. & Fawcett, R. F. (1993). The ART test of interaction: A robust and powerful rank test of interaction in factorial models. Communications in Statistics: Simulation and Computation, 22(1), 137–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610919308813085

Saqr, M., Viberg, O., & Vartiainen, H. (2020). Capturing the participation and social dimensions of computer-supported collaborative learning through social network analysis: which method and measures matter? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(2), 227–248.

Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two “wrongs” may make a right…If they argue together! Cognition & Instruction, 18(4), 461–494.

Schwarz, B. B., Schur, Y., Pensso, H., & Tayer, N. (2011). Perspective taking and argumentation for learning the day/night cycle. The International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 113–138.

Seixas, P. (2006). Benchmarks of historical thinking: A framework for assessment in Canada. Vancouver, CA: Center for the Study of Historical Consciousness. Retrieved from archive.history benchmarks.ca/documents/benchmarks-historical-thinking-frameworkassessment-Canada

UNESCO (2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on education: international evidence from the Responses to Educational Disruption Survey (REDS). International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. ISBN: 978-92-3-100502-2

Wegerif, R. (2007). Dialogic education and technology: Expanding the space of learning‏. Springer Science & Business Media.‏

Wegerif, R. (2008). Dialogic or dialectic? The significance of ontological assumptions in research on educational dialogue. British Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 347–361.

Wise, A. F. & Schwarz, B. B. (2017). Visions of CSCL: Eight provocations for the future of the field. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12, 423–467.‏

Wobbrock, J. O., Findlater, L., Gergle, D., & Higgins, J. J. (2011). The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only ANOVA procedures. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ‘11) (pp. 143–146). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978963

Zheng, L. Cui, P., & Zhang, X. (2020). Does collaborative learning design align with enactment? An innovative method of evaluating the alignment in the CSCL context. The International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 15(2), 193–226.

Zohar, A. & Boshrian, A. (Eds.) (2020). Adapting curricula and teaching materials to the 21st century — Summary of the work of the expert committee, status report and recommendations. Center for Knowledge and Research in Education, Israel National Academy of Sciences. Jerusalem.