Discourse moves and socio-emotional interactions in collaborative argumentation: Exploring how their co-occurrence impacts argumentation quality

Abstract

Collaborative argumentation is an essential skill for the 21st century. Previous research showed that both discourse moves and socio-emotional interactions played key roles in collaborative argumentation. However, few studies have investigated how their co-occurrence impacted argumentation quality. To address this gap, we recruited 55 college students to participate in a 90 min collaborative argumentation activity and selected eight target groups for further analysis. The co-occurrence characteristics of discourse moves and socio-emotional interactions that supported or hindered productive collaborative argumentation were identified by comparing the differences between four high- and four low-performing groups. Several differences between the groups were demonstrated through statistical analyses and epistemic network analysis (ENA). First, the low-performing groups spent more time persuading opponents to change sides (e.g., CounterC, Rebuttal, and CounterUC moves) and resisting open exchanges of ideas (e.g., Reject moves), whereas the high-performing groups actively promoted co-construction of ideas (e.g., Advance, Accommodate, and Concede moves). Second, the low-performing groups often struggled to resolve significant disagreements and reached impasses, whereas the high-performing groups consistently overcame divergences and achieved consensus. Third, ENA demonstrated that when applying critical moves (e.g., CounterC, Rebuttal), the low-performing groups tended to generate negative socio-emotional interactions (e.g., interrupting others, pressuring others, undermining group cohesion), which led to interpersonal conflicts and meaningless communication. In contrast, the high-performing groups released tension and sustained a favorable atmosphere through positive interactions (e.g., using humor/laughter/smiles, encouraging participation/motivation, promoting group cohesion), which facilitated productive dialogue. These findings have pedagogical implications for fostering more effective argumentation instruction.