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

Article

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.

Keywords

Argumentation Knowledge construction E-discussions and learning 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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
  2. Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and arguing. The social organization of accounts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloch, M. (1949). Apologie pour l’histoire du métier d’historien. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colingwood, R. G. (1946). The idea of history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 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.
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32(2/3), 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kuhn, D. (2001). How do people know? Psychological Science, 12(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuhn, D., Shaw, V., & Felton, M. (1997). Effects of dyadic interaction on argumentative reasoning. Cognition and Instruction, 15, 287–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.
  25. 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
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3/4), 365–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sandoval, W. (2003). Conceptual and epistemic aspects of students’ scientific explanations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(1), 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 185–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwarz, B. B., & de Groot, R. (2007). Argumentation in a changing world. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 2, 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 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.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. Toronto, ON: Wiley.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Suthers, D. D., & Weiner, A. (1995). Groupware for developing critical discussion skills. Retrieved from http://www-cscl95.indiana.edu/suthers.html.
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Weinberger, A., Ertl, B., Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 33, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science+ Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael
  2. 2.Ben-Gurion University of the NegevBeer ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations