Computer-supported Collaborative Argumentation Research Articles

Exploring students' computer‐supported collaborative argumentation with socio‐scientific issues

AbstractBackgroundThis study examined the effect of computer‐supported collaborative argumentation (CSCA) on secondary school students' understanding of socio‐scientific issues (SSI). Engaging students in collaborative argumentation is known to help with deepening their understanding of SSI.MethodsIn this study, a mixed‐method design is used to investigate 84 students' collaborative argumentation processes and outcomes. The statistical analysis, epistemic network analysis and qualitative uptake analysis results showed that CSCA was effective in supporting secondary school students' evidence‐based argumentation skills on SSI.Findings and ConclusionSeveral cases were presented to show how students engaged in CSCA to explore meaningful learning opportunities and how CSCA helped students' learning on SSI.ImplicationsThe findings provided insights for future innovative teaching and learning SSI in authentic classroom settings.

The role of individual preparation before collaboration: An exploratory study on students’ computer-supported collaborative argumentation in a primary classroom

ABSTRACT Background Collaborative learning is widely applied in real-world classrooms while young learners still have challenges engaging in high-quality knowledge co-construction processes. Researchers suggested an individual preparation activity before collaboration. However, there remains a limited understanding of the role of individual preparation on students’ collaborative learning. Method Conducted in a fifth-grade English language class in a Singapore primary school, this study explored students’ collaborative learning outcome and process under two conditions: individual preparation before collaboration (With-IP) and immediate collaboration (Without-IP) conditions. Student groups’ collaborative argumentation artifacts were collected and coded. Process analysis was conducted to reveal the distribution and transitional pattern of students’ verbal discussions and online collaboration behaviors. Findings This study reveals that individual preparation (With-IP) significantly enhanced the quality of collaborative argumentation compared to no preparation (Without-IP), by fostering more idea elaboration, deeper engagement with content knowledge, and higher quality of arguments. However, the students were also found to make more coordination and regulation efforts in the With-IP condition than Without-IP condition. Contribution This research underscores the role of individual preparation on collaborative learning processes and outcomes. This insight is pivotal for educators and practitioners in tailoring collaboration scripts to the objectives of classroom teaching and learning.

The effects of politeness in shaping discourse in online debates

Computer-supported collaborative argumentation is an online activity that can engage students in deep discussion and analysis of complex problems. Given the potentially confrontational nature of argumentation, using polite language becomes a strategic approach to prevent breakdowns in group communication and nurture productive dialogues. This study aims to understand how politeness and argumentation moves influence subsequent conversation dynamics in online debates. Student postings in threaded discussions (from 20 online debates containing 2,008 messages posted by students across five semesters of a graduate-level course on distance education) were coded and scored on politeness and impoliteness using natural language processing software. The scored postings were examined to determine how impoliteness and politeness impact students’ proclivity to engage in and produce more sustained argumentative exchanges to evaluate presented claims thoroughly. The findings show that impoliteness steadily increased by up to 84% as contentious discussion threads reached 7 levels deep, and impoliteness was significantly higher in frequency in postings presenting challenges. Correspondingly, the use of politeness increased steadily by up to 139% as discussion threads reached 6 levels deep, with the frequency of politeness nearly equal across postings presenting challenges, explanations, and evidence.

Development of Design Principles of Group Awareness Tool for Facilitating Computer-supported Collaborative Argumentation

As one of the forms of collaborative learning, collaborative argumentation can improve students’ argumentation skills, promote effective content learning and cultivate critical thinking. Especially in the field of Computer-supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), such as conflicts between group members, free-riding behavior, and unequal participation occur frequently. At the same time, in the CSCL environment, it is difficult to coordinate one’s actions with other group members’ actions. These problems are mainly caused by learners who cannot obtain group awareness information about accompanying learners and the current group. Therefore, this study according to the previous research, the initial design principles and initial specific guidelines for the group awareness tool were identified. After that, three educational technology experts reviewed the initial design principles and guidelines. The modified specific guidelines were applied to the two-week classroom teaching of 45 first-year students in a class. In addition, a learners’ response survey was conducted on the students who actually participated in the computer-supported collaborative argumentation activities. Finally, the results of questionnaire surveys (n=45) and interviews (n=5) were analyzed, and the final specific guidelines were developed. According to the research results, collaborative argumentation based on group awareness tool solves the problem that general collaborative argumentation activities can’t obtain timely information on the cognitive, behavioral, and social awareness of accompanying learners and the current group study situation. It can continuously maintain their study motivation and promote interaction among learners to improve the quality of computer-supported collaborative learning.

Students’ appropriation of collaboration script in a networked class: an exploratory study

ABSTRACT This study investigates the role of a collaboration script, the Funnel Model, in supporting students’ computer-supported collaborative scientific argumentation, and how the students appropriated the collaboration script in scientific argumentation. In this exploratory case study, a class of 33 Secondary grade four students went through four phases of computer-supported collaborative argumentation activity scripted by the Funnel Model: individual ideation, intra-group synergy, inter-group critique and intra-group refinement. Multiple sources of data were collected including student-generated artefacts online at different phases of collaboration, and the post-intervention interviews with the students. The results show that the Funnel Model facilitated students’ computer-supported collaborative argumentation. The students’ levels of content mastery, motivation, classroom culture and time allocated for classroom participation affect students’ appropriation of the script for effective collaborative argumentation.

AppleTree system for effective computer-supported collaborative argumentation: an exploratory study

AppleTree system for effective computer-supported collaborative argumentation: an exploratory study

First- and second-order scaffolding of argumentation competence and domain-specific knowledge acquisition: a systematic review

ABSTRACTResults of research on intentions and effects of first- and second-order argument scaffolding of computer-supported collaborative argumentation competence development and domain-specific knowledge acquisition are ambivalent. A systematic review of research in secondary and higher education (SE and HE) has been conducted to clarify and synthesise these intentions and effects, thereby differentiating between communication type (synchronous–asynchronous) and group size. Empirical research with pre-post-test designs was included only. Using specific search terms, 527 articles were found; 19 of these met pre-set selection criteria. Results indicate that HE studies intended to foster argumentation knowledge and domain-specific knowledge acquisition (i.e. knowledge construction), and reported significant effects for both types of knowledge. SE studies, however, intended to foster argumentation behaviour and domain specific knowledge acquisition (i.e. learning by doing), and showed significant effects regarding the latter only. HE studies predominantly used asynchronous, and SE studies synchronous communication. Choice of group size was not explicitly justified.

Probability Learning in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation (CSCA) Environment

Probability Learning in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation (CSCA) Environment

The effects of active versus reflective learning style on the processes of critical discourse in computer‐supported collaborative argumentation

AbstractThis study examined how message‐response exchanges produced in the interactions between active learners only, reflective learners only, active‐reflective learners and reflective‐active learners affected how often active versus reflective learners posted rebuttals to arguments and challenges across four types of exchanges that believed to promote critical discourse (argument–challenge, challenge–counterchallenge, challenge–explain, challenge–evidence) in computer‐supported collaborative argumentation (CSCA). This study found that the exchanges between reflective learners produced 44% more responses than in the exchanges between active learners (ES = +0.17). The reflective–reflective exchanges produced 47% more responses than the active–reflective exchanges (ES = +0.18). These results suggest that groups with reflective learners only are likely to produce more critical discourse than groups with active learners only, and the ratio of active–reflective learners within a group can potentially influence overall group performance. These findings illustrate how specific traits of the learner can affect discourse processes in CSCA and provide insights into process‐oriented strategies and tools for structuring dialogue and promoting critical inquiry in online discussions.

Gender Interaction Patterns and Gender Participation in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation

This case study examined interaction patterns between men and women and the effects of the patterns on gender participation in online debates. Students labeled messages to identify each message as an argument, challenge, evidence, or explanation when posting messages to the debates. The results revealed no differences in the number of male and female challenges elicited by male versus female messages, number of male and female rebuttals (e.g., explanations and counterchallenges) elicited by male versus female challenges, and the frequency of challenges and explanations posted by men versus women. These findings suggest that gender differences in communication styles do not necessarily produce gender differences in response patterns and participation. Other factors such as male–female ratio and task structures can affect gender interaction patterns and gender participation. Nevertheless, this study demonstrated how interaction patterns can provide causal explanations for observed differences and similarities in male and female performance in computer-mediated environments.

The Effects of Gender Interaction Patterns on Student Participation in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation

In this study we examined response patterns in exchanges between males and females and their effects on gender participation in five online debates. Students classified messages into arguments, evidence, critiques, and elaborations while posting messages to the debates to facilitate argumentation and the sequential analysis of message-response sequences. The findings revealed no differences in number of critiques posted in response to arguments because females were just as likely as males to critique messages from both males and females, and because females responded to males with critiques at a higher than expected frequency. Posthoc analysis revealed strong indications that females posted fewer rebuttals to the critiques of females than males, and males posted more rebuttals to the critiques of females than females. The methods used in this study illustrate a process-oriented approach to explain and predict gender differences in participation and serve as a framework for future research on gender participation, group interaction, and strategies for facilitating collaborative argumentation and problem solving.

The Effects of Conversational Language on Group Interaction and Group Performance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation

This study examined the effects of conversational language (e.g., asking questions, inviting replies, acknowledgments, referencing others by name, closing signatures, ‘I agree, but’, greetings, etc.) on the frequency and types of responses posted in reply to given types of messages (e.g., argument, evidence, critique, explanation), and how the resulting response patterns support and inhibit collaborative argumentation in asynchronous online discussions. Using event sequence analysis to analyze message-response exchanges in eight online group debates, this study found that (a) arguments elicited 41% more challenges when presented with more conversational language (effect size .32), (b) challenges with more conversational language elicited three to eight times more explanations (effect size .12 to .31), and (c) the number of supporting evidence elicited by challenges was not significantly different from challenges that used more versus less conversational language. Overall, these and other findings from exploratory post-hoc tests show that conversational language can help to produce patterns of interaction that foster high levels of critical discourse, and that some forms of conversational language are more effective in eliciting responses than others.

Formal systems for persuasion dialogue

This article reviews formal systems that regulate persuasion dialogues. In such dialogues two or more participants aim to resolve a difference of opinion, each trying to persuade the other participants to adopt their point of view. Systems for persuasion dialogue have found application in various fields of computer science, such as non-monotonic logic, artificial intelligence and law, multi-agent systems, intelligent tutoring and computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Taking a game-theoretic view on dialogue systems, this review proposes a formal specification of the main elements of dialogue systems for persuasion and then uses it to critically review some of the main formal systems for persuasion. The focus of this review will be on regulating the interaction between agents rather than on the design and behaviour of individual agents within a dialogue.

The Effects of Linguistic Qualifiers and Intensifiers on Group Interaction and Performance in Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation

<P>This study tested the effects of linguistic qualifiers and intensifiers on the number and types of replies elicited per argument and per challenge posted in online debates. To facilitate collaborative argumentation, thirty-two students (22 females, 10 males) enrolled in a graduate-level online course classified and labeled their messages as arguments, challenges, supporting evidence, or explanations prior to posting each message. The findings showed that qualified arguments elicited 41 percent fewer replies (effect size = -.64), and the reduction in replies was greatest when qualified arguments were presented by females than males. Challenges without qualifiers, however, did not elicit more replies than challenges with qualifiers. These findings suggest that qualifiers were used to hedge arguments, and such behaviors should be discouraged during initial stages of identifying arguments (more so in all-female than in all-male groups) in order to elicit more diverse and more opposing viewpoints needed to thoroughly and critically analyze arguments. <BR></P> <P><STRONG>Keywords:</STRONG> Computer-mediated communication, CMC, communication style, group interaction patterns, interaction analysis, computer-supported collaborative learning, CSCL, collaborative argumentation.</P>

External representations of argumentation

In this paper, we consider how the emerging field of Computer Supported Collaborative Argumentation (CSCA) can build on the traditions of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, in particular environments that offer graphical representations of scientific inquiry, and design argumentation. Collaborative scientific inquiry and design argumentation share processes such as coordination, maintaining focus and coherence and negotiating knowledge. We discuss how characteristics of the external representations used, in particular their ontology and specificity, can influence, for good or bad, these processes. There is evidence in CSCL research that the representational notation (the definition of the objects and relations that can be used) guides the dialogues between learners. This is not necessary a guidance towards better performance. Other research in CSCL as well as design rationale indicates that a misfit between the notation and the task may have deleterious effects on task performance.

Can you train employees to solve problems?

Performance ImprovementVolume 40, Issue 9 p. 18-24 Article Can you train employees to solve problems? David Jonassen, David Jonassen Jonassen@missouri.edu. David Jonassen is Distinguished Professor in the School of Information Science and Learning Technologies at the University of Missouri. Since completing his doctorate in Educational Media and Experimental Educational Psychology at Temple University, he has taught at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, the University of Colorado, Twente University in the Netherlands, Syracuse University, Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, Pennsylvania State University, and the University of Bergen in Norway. David is working on his 23rd book and has published numerous articles, chapters, and technical reports. His current research focuses on problem solving, cognitive tools for knowledge representation, and computer-supported collaborative argumentation. He has received several awards for his research and has consulted with schools, universities, and businesses around the world.Search for more papers by this author David Jonassen, David Jonassen Jonassen@missouri.edu. David Jonassen is Distinguished Professor in the School of Information Science and Learning Technologies at the University of Missouri. Since completing his doctorate in Educational Media and Experimental Educational Psychology at Temple University, he has taught at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, the University of Colorado, Twente University in the Netherlands, Syracuse University, Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, Pennsylvania State University, and the University of Bergen in Norway. David is working on his 23rd book and has published numerous articles, chapters, and technical reports. His current research focuses on problem solving, cognitive tools for knowledge representation, and computer-supported collaborative argumentation. He has received several awards for his research and has consulted with schools, universities, and businesses around the world.Search for more papers by this author First published: 08 February 2007 https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140400905Citations: 4 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume40, Issue9October 2001Pages 18-24 RelatedInformation

Develop Critical Thinking in Group Problem Solving through Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation: A Case Study

This paper reports a study of supporting development of critical thinking skills for 30 students. The students were engaged in ill-structured problem solving exercises in a turfgrass management course with a Computer-Supported Collaborative Argumentation (CSCA) tool. The instructional approach was case-based problem solving involving student presentations, instructor-led discussions, and unmoderated small-group discussions. The students used a CSCA tool, QuestMap, to generate arguments for problem analysis and solutions during small-group discussions. A survey given to the students at the end of the course revealed that the CSCA tool increased clarity of thought, enhanced organization of ideas, enabled in-depth analysis, facilitated sharing of multiple perspectives, and allowed visualization of arguments and discussions. However, out of the 14 respondents, 8 encountered some difficulty in operating the program. Observation of a small group engaging in discussion was used to validate some of the feedback obtained in the survey. It also revealed the students' tendency to make more Claims and Grounds than Warrants in their arguments and to rarely formulate other components of arguments. The group was found to use the CSCA tool as a peripheral tool rather than as a mediation tool during the discussion, an arrangement that might weaken the effect of CSCA.

Computer-supported collaborative argumentation and fuzzy similarity measures in multiple criteria decision making

Group decision making is usually performed in the presence of conflicting goals and criteria, brought up by spatially dispersed parties with different backgrounds and interests. Recent advances in information technology and computer science may satisfactorily address a variety of related problems, such as communication among the decision makers and efficient elicitation and representation of the domain knowledge. Furthermore, they may significantly automate the decision making process itself. On the other hand, the inherent uncertainty of the problem advocates the use of approximation models, often coming from the fuzzy sets discipline. This paper presents an integrated framework for multiple criteria decision making among groups on the World Wide Web. The agents involved use a fully implemented argumentative discourse system to pursue their criteria and objectives, the aim being the specification of the desired solution to the problem. The system organizes the collective knowledge in a discussion graph with truth maintenance and consistency checking features. Fuzzy similarity measures are then involved in order to assess alternative existing solutions with respect to the desired one. Scope and purpose We view multiple criteria decision making as a collaborative process, where decision makers have to follow a series of communicative actions in order to establish a common belief on the dimensions of the problem. Such dimensions may concern the choice criteria, the existing or desired alternative solutions, or the objective function, to mention some. This paper presents a framework for multiple criteria decision making among groups. Our approach exploits recent advances in information technology and manages to (i) remove the communication impediments among spatially dispersed decision makers, (ii) efficiently represent the domain knowledge, (iii) develop efficient mechanisms to structure and consistently maintain the decision analysis, and (iv) automate the multiple criteria decision making process per se. The framework is based on a fully implemented system, namely H ermes, which enhances decision making by supporting argumentative discourse among decision makers. The system is implemented in Java and runs on the World Wide Web, thus providing relatively inexpensive access to a broad public.

Workshop report: computer-supported collaborative argumentation for learning communities

Workshop report: computer-supported collaborative argumentation for learning communities