Skip to main content
Log in

The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Argumentative activity has been found beneficial for construction of knowledge and evaluation of information in some conditions. Many theorists in CSCL and some empiricists have suggested that graphical representations may help in this endeavor. In the present study, we examine effects of type of ontology and of synchronicity in students that engage intuitively, without training, in e-discussions. Fifty-four Grade 7 students from two classes participated in the study. We tested the effects of using an informal argumentative ontology and control over turn taking on the average number of claims and arguments relevant to the issue at stake, the average number of different types of references to peers (productive. etc.), and on the number of chat expressions (nicknames, swear words, etc.). We found that when providing both an informal argumentative ontology and control over turn taking, students express less chat expressions and fewer references that are not new relevant claims or arguments to their peers, but express more relevant claims and arguments. These findings suggest the immediate beneficial role of the combination of an informal ontology and control over turn taking in the co-elaboration of knowledge.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andriessen, J., Erkens, G., van de Laak, C., Peters, N., & Coirier, P. (2003). Argumentation as negotiation in electronic collaborative writing. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and arguing. The social organization of accounts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, P. (1997). Using argument representations to make thinking visible for individuals and groups. In R. Hall, N. Miyake, & N. Enyedy (Eds.), Proceedings of CSCL ’97: The second international conference on computer support for collaborative learning (pp. 10–19). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

  • Bell, P., & Linn, M. (2000). Scientific arguments as learning artifacts: Designing for learning from the web with KIE. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 797–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, M. (1949). Apologie pour l’histoire du métier d’historien. Paris: Armand Colin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, R. E. (1993). Decision-making during the collaborative planning of co-authors. In A. Penrose & B. Sitko (Eds.), Hearing ourselves think: Cognitive research in the college writing classroom (pp. 125–146). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cazden, C. B. (1995). Play with language and meta-linguistic awareness: One dimension of language experience. In J. S. Bruner (Ed.), Play—its role in development and evolution (pp. 603–608). New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. H. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Colingwood, R. G. (1946). The idea of history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Condon, S. L., & Cech, C. G. (1996). Discourse management strategies in face-to-face and computer-mediated decision making interactions. Electronic Journal of Communication/La revue électronique de communication, 6(3), http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/v6n396.htm.

  • de Vries, E., Lund, C., & Baker, M. (2002). Computer-mediated epistemic dialogue: Explanation and argumentation as vehicles for understanding scientific notions. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 63–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32(2/3), 135–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glachan, M., & Light, P. (1982). Peer interaction and learning: Can two wrongs make a right? In G. Butterworth & P. Light (Eds.), Social cognition: Studies in the development of understanding (pp. 238–262). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glassner, A., Weinstock, M., & Neuman, Y. (2005). Pupils’ evaluation and generation of evidence and explanation in argumentation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 105–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herring, S. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H. Hamilton (Eds), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 612–634). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Duchak-Tanner, V., & Rattay, C. (2000). Hypothesis-testing in science: Group consensus and the acquisition of conceptual and procedural knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 10, 361–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. L., Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., & Soloway, E. (1994). Making dynamic modeling accessible to precollege science students. Interactive Learning Environments, 4(3), 233–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marvin, L.-E. (1995). Spoof, spam, lurk and lag: the aesthetics of text-based virtual realities. The Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/vol1/issue2/marvin.html.

  • Miller, M. (1987). Argumentation and cognition. In M. Hickmann (Ed.), Social and functional approaches to language and thought (pp. 225–249). Orlando, FL: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller Mirza, N., Tartas, V., Perret-Clermont, A.-N., & de Pietro, J.-F. (2007). Using graphical tools in a phased activity for enhancing dialogical skills: An example with Digalo. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 247–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, D. E. (1989). When the medium determines turns: Turn-taking in computer conversation. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Working with Language (pp. 251–266). New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilkington, R., & Walker, A. (2003). Using CMC to develop argumentation skills in children with a ‘literacy deficit’. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 144–175). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3/4), 365–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, L. B., Salmon, M., Zeitz, C. M., Wathen, S. H., & Holowchak, M. (1993) Reasoning in conversation. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3/4), 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In D. S. Kuhn & R. Siegler (Eds.), Cognition, perception and language (pp. 679–744). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Archer, W., & Garrison, R. (1999). Assessing social presence in asynchronous computer conferencing transcripts. Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 50–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval, W. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 185–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, T., Van Keer, H., De Wever, B., & Valcke, M. (2007). Scripting by assigning roles: Does it improve knowledge construction in asynchronous discussion groups? International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 225–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & de Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2003). The blind and the paralytic: Fostering argumentation in everyday and scientific issues. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 227–260). Dodrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., & Glassner, A. (2007). Designing CSCL argumentative environments for broadening and deepening understanding of the space of debate. In R. Säljö (Ed.), Information and communication technology and the transformation of learning practices. London: Pergamon Press. In press.

  • Schwarz, B. B., & Linchevski, L. (2007). The role of task design and of argumentation in cognitive development during peer interaction. The case of proportional reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), in press.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity: An empirical study. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 221–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Toronto, ON: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, N. L., & Bernas, R. (1999). The early emergence of argumentative knowledge and skill. In J. Andriessen & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundations of argumentative text processing (pp. 97–116). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, N. L., & Miller, C. A. (1993). The development of memory and reasoning skill in argumentative contexts: Evaluating, explaining, and generating evidence. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Studies in instructional psychology (Vol. IV) (pp. 285–335). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D. (2003). Representational guidance for collaborative inquiry. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 27–46). Dodrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An empirical study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D., & Weiner, A. (1995). Groupware for developing critical discussion skills. Retrieved from http://www-cscl95.indiana.edu/suthers.html.

  • Toth, E., Suthers, D., & Lesgold, A. (2002). Mapping to know: The effects of evidence maps and reflective assessment on scientific inquiry skills. Science Education, 86(2), 264–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Bruggen, J. M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2003). Designing external representations to support solving wicked problems. In J. Andriessen, M. Baker, & D. Suthers (Eds.), Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments (pp. 177–204). Dodrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (2000). Enhancing learning through synchronous electronic discussion. Computers and Education, 34(2–3), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33, 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Baruch B. Schwarz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schwarz, B.B., Glassner, A. The role of floor control and of ontology in argumentative activities with discussion-based tools. Computer Supported Learning 2, 449–478 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9024-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9024-2

Keywords

Navigation